•NRLF 


B    3 


7flM 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


ALFRED  L.  KROEBER 
COLLECTION 


r\ 

A.  L.  Kroeber 


ELEPHANT  PIPES 


IX    THE    MISKCM    OF    Till-: 


ACADEMY  OF  NATURAL 


DAVENPORT,  IOWA. 


BY 


CHARLES    E.    PUTNAM 


I) AY  i;\  I'ORT,    IOWA: 

il.A.v-    A     IIOOVKK,    I'KI.NTKKS    AND    HINDKKS. 
1885. 


DAVENPORT  ACADEMY  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCES. 


OFFICERS  — 1885. 

C.    I-:.    PUTNAM, President. 

C.  E.   HARRISON,       ....  First  Vice-Presidtnt. 

J.    B.    PHELPS, Second   Vice-President. 

Miss   LUCY   M.    PRATT,      .          .          .  Recording  Secretary. 

W.    H.    PRATT, Corresponding  Secretary 

W.    H.    FLl'KE,  ....  Treasurer. 

W.    II.    PRATT,          .          .          .          .          .  Curator.- 

DR.   JENNIE  McCOWEX,  Librarian. 


TRUSTEEjS. 

C.     E.     PlTNAM,  } 

W.   H.   FLUKE,  /-  E.v-ojfido. 

Miss  LUCY  M.  PRATT,  ) 

C.  C.  PARRY,  M.D.  J.  P».  PHELPS.  E.  H.  HA/EN,  M.D. 

C.  H.  PRESTON,  M.I).  WILLIAM  RIEPE.  !•",.  P.  LYNCH. 

Prof.  W.  H.  BARKIS.  W.  H.  PRATT.  C.  E.  HARRISON. 

TAMES  THOMPSON.  G.  P.  MCCLELLAND.  T.  W.  MCCLELLAND. 


STANDING   COMMITTEES. 

finance.—  W.  H.  Fluke,  G.  P.  McClelland,  Rev.  A.  M.  Judy,  H.  C.  Fulton. 

Publication.—  Mrs.  M.  L.  D.  Putnam,   Prof.  W.  H.    Barris,   Dr.   C.   C.   Parry, 
Dr.  C.  H.  Preston,  James  Thompson. 

Miisciiw.—Vt.    H.    Pratt,    Prof.   D.   S.   Sheldon,    Prof.  W.  H.  Barris,    William 
Riepe,  Capt.  W.  P.  Hall,  E.  P.  Lynch,  Miss  Julia  F.  Sanders. 

Library.  —  Dr.  Jennie  McCowen,  C.  E.  Harrison,  James  M.  De  Armond. 


HONORARY    MEMBERS. 

Priif.  ASA  GRAY,  M.I).,'     ....  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Prof.  JOSEPH  HENRY,  .         .         .  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dr.  JOHN    L.    LE  CONTE.  .          .         .  Philadelphia,!^. 

Dr.  JARED  P.   KIRTLAND,      .         .         .  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dr.  JOSEPH  D.    HOOKER,  .         .         .  Ke-w,  England. 

Prof.  ALPHONSE  DE  CANDOLLE,    .         .  Geneva,  Switzerland. 

Dr.  WM.   B.   CARPENTER,  .         .         .  London,  England. 

Prof.  J.   O.   WESTWOOD,         .         .         .  Oxford,  England. 

Prof.  SPENCER  F.  BAIRD,  .         .         .  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dr.    H.    A.    HAG  EN,         ....  Cambridge,  Mass. 


A 

VINDICATION 

OK    T11K    AUTHENTICITY    OK    Tilt 

Elephant  Pipes  ami  Inscribed  Tablets 


IN    THE    MUSEUM    OK    THE 


DAVENPORT  ACADEMY  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCES, 


KKOM    THE 


ACCUSATIONS  OF  THE  BUREAU  OF   ETHNOLOGY, 


SMITHSONIAN     INSTITUTION. 


BY 

CHARLES    E.^PUTNAM, 

PRESIDENT  OK  THE  DAVENPORT  ACADEMY  OK  NATURAL  SCIENCES. 


—  Fiat  /Hstitia,  runt  ccelum.  — 


DAVKNPOKT,    IOWA: 

(,1-ASS    \     HOOVER,    PRINTERS    AND    HINDERS. 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 


The  following  paper  was  prepared  in  response  to  an  earnest  feeling  enter 
tained  by  members  of  the  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  and  in  its 
preparation  the  writer  has  had  their  hearty  cooperation  and  active  assistance. 
Especial  acknowledgments  are  due  to  Mr.  William  H.  Pratt,  the  Curator  and 
Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Academy,  whose  extensive  researches  in  arche 
ology  enabled  him  to  furnish  much  valuable  material  for  incorporation  in  this 
paper;  to  Rev.  A.  M.  Judy,  Mr.  James  Thompson,  and  Dr.  C.  H.  Preston,  who, 
as  a  special  committee  on  behalf  of  the  Academy,  thoroughly  investigated  all  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  transactions  in  question,  and  freely  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  the  writer  the  results  of  their  investigations;  and  to  our  honored 
associates,  Prof.  1).  S.  Sheldon  and  Rev.  W.  H.  Harris,  of  Griswold  College,  who 
carefully  reviewed  the  paper,  and  favored  the  writer  with  excellent  suggestions. 
An  expression  of  grateful  appreciation  is  also  due  to  those  correspondents,  in 
various  parts  of  the  country,  who,  in  strong  terms,  have  expressed  their  con 
demnation  of  the  unjustifiable  attack  made  upon  the  Academy  by  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Kthnology;  and,  in  entering  upon  the  preparation  of  this  vin 
dication,  the  writer  has  derived  great  encouragement  from  the  hearty  assurances 
of  approbation  and  support  received  from  these  eminent  arclncologists. 

C.  10.  P. 

DAVKNTOKT,   IOWA,    Febniarv  9th,    iSS^. 


Anthropology 


Add'l 


ANTHROF- 
LIBRARY 


ELEPHANT  PIPES  AND  INSCRIBED  TABLETS 

OK    TIIK. 

MOUND-BUILDERS. 


BY    CHARLES    E.    PUTNAM. 


IN  the  sharp  controversy  now  being  waged  among  archaeologists,  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  Mound-builders,  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  con 
nected  with  the  Smithsonian  Institution  has  taken  decided  position 
as  the  champion  of  the  theory  that  this  mysterious  race  can  be  traced 
with  comparative  certainty  to  the  ancestors  of  our  American  Indians. 
In   the   first   annual  report   of  the   Bureau,    Major  Powell,  its  accom 
plished  .Director,  thus  emphatically  states  its  position   upon  this  ques 
tion  :* 

"With  regard  to  the  mounds  so  widely  scattered  between  the  two  oceans,  it  may 
also  be  said  that  mound-building  tribes  were  known  in  the  early  history  of  the  dis 
covery  of  this  continent,  and  that  vestiges  of  art  discovered  do  not  excel  in  any 
respect  the  arts  of  Indian  tribes  known  to  history.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason 
for  us  to  search  for  an  extralimital  origin,  through  lost  tribes,  for  the  arts  discov 
ered  in  the  mounds  of  North  America.  The  tracing  of  the  origin  of  these  arts  to 
the  ancestors  of  known  tribes,  or  stocks  of  tribes,  is  more  legitimate." 

The  position  thus  assumed  by  Major  Powell  finds  recent  and  strong 
support  in  the  work  of  Marquis  De  Nadaillac,  on  "Prehistoric  Amer 
ica,"  just  issued  from  the  press,  whose  conclusions  upon  this  interest 
ing  question  are  thus  stated  :t 

"In  closing  this  chapter,  what,  it  may  be  asked,  are  we  to  believe  was  the  char 
acter  of  the  race  to  which,  for  the  purpose  of  clearness,  we  have  for  the  time  being 
applied  the  term  'Mound-builder?'  The  answer  must  be,  they  were  no  more  nor 
less  than  the  immediate  predecessors,  in  blood  and  culture,  of  the  Indians  described 
by  De  Soto's  chronicler  and  other  early  explorers — the  Indians  who  inhabited  the 
region  of  the  mounds  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  by  civilized  men."  + 

*  First  Annual  Report  of  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  Washing-ton,   1879-80,   p.  74. 
f  Prehistoric  America,  by  Marquis  De  \Tadaillac,   p.  130. 

$  Foster  makes  this  strong-  statement  of  the  opposite  position  concerning  the  American 
Indian:  "He  was  never  known  voluntarily  to  engage  in  an  enterprise  requiring  methodical 


466 


-4- 

Another  class  of  archaeologists  as  strongly  maintain  the  opposite 
theory,  that  the  Mound-builders  were  more  advanced  in  civilization 
than  the  American  Indian,  and  hence  have  endeavored  to  trace  them 
to  a  Mexican  origin,  or  to  some  earlier  common  ancestry.  The  leader 
ship  on  this  side  must  be  accorded  to  Messrs.  Squier  and  Davis,  who, 
in  their  great  work  upon  "Ancient  Monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Val 
ley,"  thus  state  their  conclusions:* 

"Without  undertaking  to  point  out  the  affinities,  or  to  indicate  the  probable 
origin  of  the  builders  of  the  western  monuments,  and  the  cause  of  their  final  dis 
appearance,  we  may  venture  to  suggest  that  the  facts  so  far  collected  point  to  a 
connection,  more  or  less  intimate,  between  the  race  of  the  mounds  and  the  semi- 
civilized  nations  which  formerly  had  their  seats  among  the  sierras  of  Mexico  and 
Peru,  and  who  erected  the  imposing  structures  which,  from  their  number,  vastness, 
and  mysterious  significance,  invest  the  central  portion  of  the  continent  with  an  inter 
est  no  less  absorbing  than  that 'which  attaches  to  the  Nile.  These  nations  alone,  of 
all  found  in  possession  of  the  continent  by  the  European  discoverers,  were  essen 
tially  stationary  and  agricultural  in  their  habits,  conditions  indispensable  to  large 
populations,  to  fixedness  of  institutions,  and  to  any  considerable  advance  in  the 
economic  or  ennobling  arts.  That  the  Mound-builders,  although  perhaps  in  a  less 
degree,  were  also  stationary  and  agricultural,  clearly  appears  from  a  variety  of  facts 
and  circumstances,  most  of  which  will  no  doubt  recur  to  the  mind  of  the  reader." 

After  the  lapse  of  nearly  half  a  century,  and  in  the  light  of  subse 
quent  researches,  a  more  recent  statement  of  this  position  was  made  by 
Prof.  F.  W.  Putnam,  of  the  Peabody  Museum,  at  the  British  Association 
during  its  session  at  Montreal.  At  this  meeting  Prof.  Putnam  gave  an 
interesting  account  of  discoveries  made  in  a  group  of  mounds  in  Ham 
ilton  County,  Ohio,  and  his  conclusions  were  subsequently  reported  in 
Science,  as  follows :  t 

"These  relics  seem  to  show  a  more  complex  social  life,  more  abundant  and  varied 
artistic  products,  and  a  higher  status  altogether,  than  can  be  deemed  consistent 
with  the  views  of  those  who  hold  that  these  Mound-builders  were  merely  the 
ancestors  of  our  present  Indians,  and  in  the  same  state  of  culture." 

An  abstract  of  another  paper  by  Prof.  Putnam,  presented  before  the 


hihor;  he  dwells  in  temporary  and  movable  habitations;  he  follows  the  game  in  their  migra 
tions;  he  imposes  the  drudgery  of  life  upon  his  squaw;  he  takes  no  heed  for  the  future'.  To 
suppose  that  such  a  race  threw  up  the  strong  line  of  circumvallations  and  the  symmetrical 
mounds  which  crown  so  many  of  our  river  terraces,  is  as  preposterous,  almost,  as  to  suppose 
that  they  built  the  pyramids  of  Egypt."  ("Prehistoric  Races,"  p.  300.) 

See,  also,  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia,  title  "American  Antiquities,"  wherein  Prof.  J.  S.  Newberry 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  "  the  Mound-builders  belonged  to  a  distinct  and  now  extinct 
race." 

*  Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  Vol.  I.,  p.  301. 

\Scienc,-  for  September  26th,  1884. 


American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science  at  its  recent 
meeting  in  Philadelphia,  was  also  published  in  Science,  wherein  an 
account  is  given  of  his  explorations  of  a  group  of  mounds  in  Madison  - 
ville,  Ohio,  and  it  is  stated  that,  "as  a  result,  one  of  the  most  remark 
able  series  of  objects  ever  discovered  in  America  had  been  obtained:"* 

"Among  the  objects  taken  from  the  largest  mound  of  the  group  were  the  follow 
ing,  some  of  them  never  found  before  in  mounds:  Shell-beads,  disks,  and  rings, 
which  were  obtained  in  thousands;  cones  cut  from  alligator  teeth;  ornaments  cut 
from  plates  of  buffalo  horn,  mica,  and  native  copper,  and  even  gold  and  meteoric 
iron;  pearls,  most  of  them  pierced  and  injured  by  heat  (not  less  than  fifty  thousand 
were  found);  small  stone  dishes,  beautifully  carved  to  represent  some  animal  form; 
and  last,  and  perhaps  most  important,  terra-cotta  figurines  of  exceedingly  artistic 
form,  and  strangely  Egyptian  in  character,  ""fr 

In  these  extracts  we  have  stated  in  clear  contrast  these  conflicting 
theories.  While  largely  engaged  in  archaeological  work,  the  Daven 
port  Academy  has  postponed  decision  upon  these  important  deduc 
tions,  awaiting  further  discoveries.  Its  conservative  position  is  well 
stated  by  its  late  Corresponding  Secretary,  Joseph  Duncan  Putnam, 
in  a  letter  to  Rev.  Dr.  Peet,  of  the  Antiquarian,  bearing  date  October 
loth,  1878: 

"I  am,  of  course,  only  an  outsider,  and  look  upon  the  workers  in  the  field  of 
archaeology  from  over  the  fence;  still  I  am  so  close  that  I  feel  like  offering  a  sug 
gestion  occasionally,  and  I  do  wish  you  archaeologists  could  introduce  some  scientific 
methods  into  so  interesting  a  study,  gather  up  the  facts,  arrange  them  systematic 
ally,  and  then  deduce  the  theories.  But  this  is  an  age  of  speculation,  'and  even  in 
entomology  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  get  up  a  theory  and  then  hunt  for  facts  to 
support  it." 

And  in  a  subsequent  letter  to  the  same  gentleman,  Mr.  Putnam  thus 
explicitly  states  the  position  of  the  Academy  upon  the  questions  raised 
by  the  discovery  of  its  inscribed  tablets : 

u  Whether  they  are  modem  Indian,  or  Mound-builder,  or  Mexican,  or  European, 
or  post-Columbian,  or  ante-Columbian  — whether  the  characters  are  phonetic,  sym- 

*  Science  for  October  ,}d,  1884. 

•fThe  late  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  in  a  series  of  admirable  papers,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
Mound -builders  were  derived  from  the  "Village  Indians"  of  New  Mexico,  and  he  advanced 
gome  strong-  reasons  in  support  of  this  conclusion.  He  further  remarks  that,  "from  the  absence 
of  all  traditionary  knowledge  of  the  Mound-builders  among  the  tribes  found  east  of  the  Missis 
sippi,  an  inference  arises  that  the  period  of  their  occupation  was  ancient.  Their  withdrawal 
was  probably  gradual,  and  completed  before  the  advent  of  the  ancestors  of  the  present  tribes,  or 
simultaneously  with  their  arrival."  While  his  conclusions  may  not  in  all  cases  be  accepted, 
these  thoughtful  papers  of  Mr.  Morgan  will  well  repay  perusal. 

See  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  title  "Architecture  of  the  American  Aborigines,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  217; 
"  Montexuma's  Dinner,"  North  American  Review,  April,  1876;  "Houses  of  the  Mound-build 
ers,"  North  American  Rwieiv,  July,  1876. 


bolic,   hieroglyphic,   or   meaningless  —  is  yet   to  be  decided;    we  have  no  means  of 
knowing." 

And  in  looking  over  the  many  statements  macfe  by  Mr.  Gass,  the 
principal  discoverer  of  these  relics,  as  published  in  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Academy,  it  will  be  found  that  they  contain  no  suggestion  of  a 
theory.  On  the  contrary,  in  giving  a  description  of  some  inscribed 
rocks  in  Cleona  Township,  Scott  County,  Iowa,  he  thus  states  his  own 
position  upon  these  mooted  questions  :* 

"But  for  what  purpose  the  people  selected  them,  by  what  intention  they  were 
guided,  with  what  kind  of  tools  the  inscriptions  on  such  hard  material  were  made, 
by  what  nation  the  engraving  was  executed  —  Indian  or  Mound-builder  —  these  are 
questions  which  I  do  not  venture  to  answer." 

In  these  utterances  on  behalf  of  the  Academy  will  be  found  the  lan 
guage,  not  of  the  champions  of  a  theory,  but  of  earnest  seekers  after 
truth. 

That  the  theory  advanced  by  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Mound-builders  should  be  maintained  with  consummate 
ability,  was  to  be  expected  of  the  able  and  accomplished  scholars 
enlisted  in  its  service.  It  is,  however,  to  be  regretted  that,  actuated 
by  intemperate  zeal  to  establish  this  theory,  its  promoters  have  some 
times  abandoned  scientific  methods,  indulged  in  hasty  generalizations, 
and  even  violated  the  amenities  of  literature.  It  will  be  found  that 
the  second  annual  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  recently  issued 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  is  open  to  this  criti 
cism.  In  that  report  there  appears  a  monograph  by  Henry  W.  Hen- 
shaw,  entitled  "Animal  Carvings  from  Mounds  in  the  Mississippi 
Valley,"t  and  therein  an  attack  of  no  ordinary  severity  is  made  upon 
the  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences.  In  this  bitter  assault 
Mr.  Henshaw  is  ably  supported  by  the  strong  endorsement  of  Major 
J.  W.  Powell,  the  Director  of  the  Bureau.  The  Smithsonian  Institu 
tion  occupies  a  commanding  position  in  the  world  of  science;  and, 
inasmuch  as  it  has  given  special  attention  to  researches  in  archaeology, 
it  may  properly  be  considered  entitled  to  speak  with  authority  upon 
these  questions.  Its  sharp  criticism,  .therefore,  presents  to  our  Acad 
emy  a  conspicuous  opportunity  for  a  careful  review  of  the  circum 
stances,  and  a  plain  restatement  of  the  facts  establishing,  beyond  rea 
sonable  doubt,  the  genuineness  of  its  valuable  discoveries. 

*  Proceeding's  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  II.,  p.  17^. 

f Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  Washing-ton,  iSSo-Si,  p.  152. 


In  the  line  of  archaeology  the  Davenport  Academy  has  attained 
deserved  eminence.  Its  inscribed  tablets,  elephant  pipes,  cloth-cov 
ered  copper  axes,  aifd  rare  collection  of  ancient  pottery  have  attracted 
the  attention  of  archaeologists  throughout  the  world  of  science.  These 
remarkable  relics,  received  with  enthusiasm  by  antiquarians,  are  gener 
ally  accepted  as  authentic  additions  to  the  "unwritten  history"  of  the 
past.  That  discoveries  so  rare  and  unique  should  be  subjected  to 
severe  scrutiny  might  reasonably  be  expected;  and,  when  exercised  in 
the  spirit  of  an  earnest  quest  of  truth,  it  was  even  to  be  desired.  Dis 
coveries  which  are  to  become  the  foundations  for  important  historical 
deductions  should  be  securely  intrenched,  beyond  the  reach  of  adverse 
criticism,  on  the  bed-rock  of  truth.  These  valuable  contributions  to 
the  science  of  archaeology  have  undoubtedly  given  the  Davenport 
Academy  conspicuous  position.  The  assumed  fact,  emphasized  by 
Mr.  Henshaw,  that  "it  has  fallen  to  the  good  fortune  of  no  one  else  to 
find  anything  conveying  the  most  distant  suggestion  of  the  mastodon," 
is  found  to  be  even  embarrassing,  inasmuch  as  it  places  our  Academy 
in  the  range  of  fire  between  contending  archaeologists.  It  is  certainly 
a  misfortune  of  the  Davenport  Academy  that  the  museum  of  the  Smith 
sonian  Institution  contains  neither  elephant  pipes  nor  inscribed  tablets. 

The  discoveries  in  question  are  two  elephant  pipes  and  three  in 
scribed  tablets.  Of  the  latter,  the  first  two  were  found  in  what  is 
known  as  Mound  Xo.  3,  on  the  Cook  farm,  adjoining  the  city  of  Dav 
enport.  The  principal  discoverer  was  Rev.  Jacob  (iass,  a  Lutheran 
clergyman,  then  settled  over  a  congregation  in  Davenport.  In  this 
exploration  Mr.  Gass  was  assisted  by  L.  H.  Willrodt  and  H.  S.  Stoltz- 
enau,  with  five  other  persons  who  were  accidentally  present  during 
the  opening  of  the  mound.  The  discovery  was  made  on  January  roth. 
1877.  An  exact  and  careful  statement  of  the  facts  connected  therewith 
was  soon  after  prepared  by  Rev.  Mr.  Gass,  and  read  at  an  early  meeting 
of  the  Davenport  Academy.  It  was  published,  and  may  be  found  in  its 
"Proceedings."*  Upon  the  announcement  of  the  discovery,  the  officers 
and  many  members  of  the  Academy  were  early  on  the  ground  to  verify 
the  statements  made  by  the  discoverers.  The  gentlemen  engaged  in  the 
exploration  are  well  known,  and  held  in  high  esteem :  their  testimony 
as  to  all  essential  facts  is  clear  and  convincing,  and  the  circumstances 
narrated  seem  to  fully  establish  the  genuineness  of  these  relics.  That 
their  statement  contains  only  facts,  all  who  know  them  will  not  ques- 

*  Proceedings  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  II.,  p.  yo. 


_8  — 

tion ;  and  that  the  mound  from  which  the  relics  were  obtained  had  not 
been  previously  disturbed,  is  sufficiently  established  by  their  testimony. 
The  authenticity  of  this  discovery  must  therefore  be  conceded  by  every 
fair-minded  inquirer. 

The  third  inscribed  tablet  was  found  on  January  3oth,  1878,  in 
Mound  No.  n,  in  the  group  of  mounds  on  Cook's  farm,  in  the  suburbs 
of  Davenport,  and  in  close  proximity  to  the  mound  wherein  the  other 
tablets  were  discovered.  That  indefatigable  explorer,  Rev.  J.  Gass, 
was  also  present  during  these  further  researches,  and  had  for  his  assist 
ants  John  Hume  and  Charles  E.  Harrison,  both  members  of  the  Acad 
emy,  and  well  and  favorably  known  in  this  community.  The  circum 
stances  of  this  discovery,  as  narrated  by  Mr.  Harrison,  are  published 
in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy.'*  No  suspicions  whatever  attach 
to  this  discovery,  and  the  well-attested  facts  connected  therewith  estab 
lish  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that,  whether  more  or  less  ancient,  the 
tablet  was  deposited  at  the  making  of  the  mound. 

Of  the  elephant  pipes  in  the  museum  of  the  Academy,  one  was  dis 
covered  in  March,  1880,  in  a  mound  on  the  farm  of  Mr.  P.  Hass,  in 
Louisa  County,  Iowa,  by  Rev.  A.  Blumer,  a  Lutheran  clergyman 
from  a  neighboring  city,  and  was  by  him  donated  to  the  Academy. 
Rev.  J.  Gass,  Mr.  F.  Hass,  and  a  number  of  workmen  were  present, 
assisting  in  the  exploration.  A  detailed  account  of  the  finding,  pre 
pared  by  Rev.  Mr.  Blumer,  is  published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Academy.t  From  the  social  standing  and  high  character  of  the  prin 
cipal  discoverers,  no  question  has  been,  or  can  be,  successfully  raised 
as  to  the  authenticity  of  this  discovery.  The  other  elephant  pipe 
was  not  "discovered"  by  Rev.  J.  Gass,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Henshavv,  but 
was  obtained  by  him  from  a  farmer  in  Louisa  County,  lowa.J  This 
man  found  it  while  planting  corn  on  his  farm  several  years  prior  to 
that  date,  and  attached  no  particular  value  to  the  relic,  but  had  some 
times  used  it  in  smoking.  A  brief  account  of  its  finding  is  given  in 
the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy,  and  in  substance  is  republished  in 
Mr.  Henshaw's  paper.  §  It  will  thus  be  perceived  that  there  are  no 

*  Proceedings  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  II.,  p.  221.  Mr.  Harrison  is 
now  Vice- President  of  the  Academy. 

f  Proceeding's  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1 52. 

^  Proceedings  of  Davenport  Academv  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  II.,  p.  ,549;  note. 

§The  quotation  from  Barber,  in  Mr.  Henshaw's  paper,  correctly  states  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  rinding  of  the  elephant  pipes;  and  still,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  his 
quotation  refutes  his  statement,  in  order  to  make  his  point  he  persists  in  speaking  of  Mr.  (Jass 
as  the  "  discoverer  "  of  both  pipes! 


suspicious  circumstances  connected  with  either  of  these  discoveries, 
but  that  the  surrounding  and  well-authenticated  facts  seem  to  suffi 
ciently  establish  the  genuineness  of  these  interesting  relics. 

The  explicit  statements  of  the  explorers  as  to  the  discovery  of  these 
relics  will  find  strong  corroboration  in  the  early  inspection  made  by 
other  members  of  the  Academy,  and  their  reports  thereon.  Thus,  the 
learned  and  lamented  Dr.  R.  |.  Farquharson,  who  was  as  guileless  in 
character  as  he  was  eminent  in  science,  in  a  paper  upon  the  inscribed 
tablets,  bears  this  most  emphatic  testimony  to  their  genuineness: 

''Shortly  after  the  report  of  the  discovery,  several  gentlemen,  officers  of  the 
Academy,  visited  the  excavation,  and,  through  our  President,  reported  that,  from 
the  unbroken  condition  of  the  layers  of  shells,  and  from  other  evidence  visible,  they 
were  of  opinion  that  no  disturbance  of  the  mound  had  taken  place  since  the  forma 
tion  of  these  layers.  Hut  the  indisputable  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  the  tablets 
rests  in  the  explicit  statement  of  Rev.  Mr.  Gass  and  the  gentlemen  assisting  him, 
that,  after  tJie  penetration  of  the  frozen  crust  of  the  earth,  thev  did  not  leave  the 
spot  until  the  tablets  were  unearthed  by  the  hands  of  the  former.  This  forever 
silences  the  doubt  in  regard  to  the  intrusion  or  interpolation  of  these  tablets,  for, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  frozen  state  of  the  ground,  it  makes  such  an  act  simply 
impossible."  * 

Kqually  emphatic  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  William  H.  Pratt,  the 
Curator  of  the  Academy,  and  one  of  its  principal  founders.  As  is 
well  known,  this  gentleman  has  given  years  of  gratuitous  service  in 
building  up  the  Davenport  Academy,  and  it  is  due  to  his  exact 
methods  and  untiring  industry  that  some  scientific  order  has  been 
introduced  into  its  valuable  museum.  During  his  long  and  disinter 
ested  connection  with  our  Academy,  Mr.  Pratt  has  been  extensively 
engaged  in  archaeological  research,  and  is  thus  well  qualified  to  pass 
judgment  on  the  authenticity  of  these  relics.  In  a  valedictory  address 
as  its  President,  delivered  before  the  Academy  at  its  annual  meeting  in 
1881,  Mr.  Pratt  thus  refers  to  these  questions: 

"Some  doubts,  of  course,  have  been  expressed  regarding  the  genuineness  of  the 
tablets,  though  not  to  any  extent  by  competent  and  candid  archaeologists,  and  we 
feel  no  uneasiness  on  that  account.  The  tablets  have  been  sent  to  the  Smithsonian 
Institution  for  examination,  and  were  retained  there  and  subjected  to  the  most 
thorough  scrutiny  for  two  months,  during  which  time  the  National  Academy  held 
its  meeting  there,  and  the  heliotype  plates  of  them  were  obtained  under  the  direc 
tion  of  Prof.  Baird  himself.  They  were  also  exhibited  throughout  the  sessions  of 
the  meeting  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  last 
August.  Any  author  or  other  person  who  cared  to  inform  himself  of  the  facts 

*  Proceedings  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  II.,  p.  107. 


10  

has  always  had  ample  opportunity  to  do  so,  and  would  at  once  see  that  the  circum 
stances  of  the  finding  were  such  as  utterly  to  preclude  all  possibility  of  fraud  or 
imposition.  The  evidence  that  they  are  coeval  with  the  other  relics  —  that  is,  that 
they  were  inhumed  with  them,  and  before  the  mound  was  built  —  is  ample  and  con 
clusive,  and  will  be  so  considered  by  any  unbiased  man.  No  prehistoric  relic  ever 
found  has  better  evidence  to  establish  its  genuineness  than  these,  and  not  one  sus 
picious  circumstance  in  connection  with  them  has  been  pointed  out,  nor  can  there 
be.  We  shall  confidently  hope  for  and  gladly  welcome  further  discoveries,  by 
whomsoever  made,  tending  to  throw  more  light  upon  this  still  obscure  and  intensely 
interesting  problem  of  our  earliest  predecessors  on  this  continent.'1* 

The  late  Joseph  Duncan  Putnam,  who  gave  his  young  life  a  martvr 
to  science,  was  at  the  date  of  this  discovery  Corresponding  Secretary 
of  the  Academy,  and  in  answer  to  a  letter  of  inquiry  from  Prof. 
Spencer  F.  Baird,  Secretary  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  addressed 
to  that  gentleman  a  communication  which  is  important  as  a  very  com 
plete  contemporary  account  written  by  an  officer  of  the  Academy  a 
few  days  after  the  finding  of  the  second  elephant  pipe,  and  hence  is 
given  entire : 

"OFFICE  OF  J.  D.  PUTNAM,  Corresponding  Secretary        \ 
Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences, 

DAVENPORT,  IOWA,  March  28th,  1880.  \ 
"PROF.  S.   F.   BAIRD  — 

"Dear  Sir :  Your  favor  of  the  iyth  inst.  duly  received  during  my  absence  from 
the  city.  It  will  give  us  pleasure  to  send  you  casts  of  the  pipes  referred  to  in  my 
previous  letters  as  soon  as  we  have  them  made;  also  of  the  elephant  pipe  found  last 
year.  There  is  no  doubt  in  our  minds  that  these  two  pipes  are  intended  to  repre 
sent  the  elephant  —  at  least  it  seems  to  require  a  good  deal  of  imagination  to  make 
them  look  like  anything  else.  In  the  finding  of  this  last  pipe  there  were  three  wit 
nesses —  Rev.  A.  Blumer,  an  evangelical  clergyman  living  in  Geneseo,  Illinois,  Rev. 
J.  Gass,  a  Lutheran  clergyman  residing  in  Davenport,  Iowa,  and  a  Mr.  Hass,  for 
many  years  owner  of  the  farm  on  which  it  was  found,  and  several  others.  We  have 
never  heard  a  word  that  would  lead  us  to  suspect  the  integrity  of  these  men  from 
any  source  whatever  (except  Eastern  archaeologists,  who  know  nothing  about  them). 
The  first  elephant  pipe  was  found  by  a  German  farmer  (Peter  Mare,  now  living 
somewhere  in  Kansas),  who  plowed  it  up  on  his  farm,  in  Louisa  County,  Iowa, 
some  seven  or  eight  years  ago.  When  he  moved  to  Kansas  he  gave  the  pipe  to  his 
brother-in-law,  from  whom  we  obtained  it  by  barter.  This  man  used  it  habitually 
for  smoking,  and  valued  it  highly  as  a  keepsake  from  his  brother.  He  had  no  idea 
of  its  archaeological  value.  The  history  of  the  finding  of  these  two  pipes  shows  not 
the  slightest  evidence  of  collusion  or  fraud.  They  each  tend  to  confirm  the  genuine 
ness  of  the  other. 

"Of  the  other  'finds'  of  Mr.  Gass,  and  of  other  members  of  the  Academy,  the 
evidence  of  genuineness  is  equally  strong  whenever  it  is  stated  they  were  taken  from 
the  mounds  by  themselves  —  as,  for  example,  the  three  inscribed  tablets,  the  first 


*  Proceedings  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  III.,  p. 


two  of  which  were  found  by  Messrs.  Gass  and  Wilrodt,  and  the  third,  a  year  later, 
by  Messrs.  Hume,  Gass,  and  Harrison.  When  the  objects  were  obtained  from  third 
persons  the  evidences  are,  of  course,  not  so  strong;  but  the  Academy's  collection 
contains  very  few  such  objects. 

"In  explanation  of  the  many  important  'finds'  made  by  Mr.  Gass,  I  would  say 
that  he  is  a  very  tireless  worker,  and  not  easily  discouraged.  The  mounds  in  this 
region  are  very  numerous,  but  not  one  in  ten  contains  anything  of  value.  This  causes 
most  men  to  become  easily  discouraged,  but  not  Mr.  Gass.  After  opening,  say,  twenty 
or  more  mounds  without  result,  he  will  commence  the  next  with  as  much  vigor  as 
the  first.  His  work  is  always  thorough,  and  if  there  is  anything  to  be  found  he 
always  finds  it.  Having  charge  of  a  number  of  small  congregations,  and  going  from 
place  to  place  to  preach,  he  has  many  acquaintances  throughout  the  country,  whom 
he  keeps  on  the  lookout  for  any  archaeological  relics  that  may  turn  up.  He  pays 
his  own  expenses,  and  whatever  he  gets  he  gives  to  the  Academy.  It  is  in  this  way 
the  Academy  has  obtained  a  number  of  objects  in  its  collection,  the  Academy  being 
entirely  without  funds  that  can  be  devoted  to  this  purpose. 

"In  the  same  manner  we  have  received  very  large  collections  of  stone  and  flint 
implements  and  pottery  from  another  of  our  members,  Captain  W.  P.  Hall,  who 
spends  most  of  his  time  traveling  up  and  down  the  entire  length  of  the  Mississippi 
and  some  of  its  branches,  paying  his  own  expenses  by  working  his  way,  and  donating 
all  he  gets  to  the  Academy.  Many  other  members,  and  many  persons  not  members, 
have  done  and  are  doing  the  same  thing.  It  is  this  unselfish  devotion  that  has  ena 
bled  the  Davenport  Academy  to  take  and  to  maintain  the  position  it  has,  notwith 
standing  the  financial  poverty  of  its  members.  None  of  our  members  known  to  me 
have  any  desire  either  to  deceive  or  be  deceived;  hence  they  would  be  greatly 
pleased  to  have  the  genuineness  of  these  relics,  about  which  some  skepticism  has 
been  expressed,  thoroughly  examined  into  by  disinterested  archaeologists.  We 
believe  this  can  be  best  done  by  personal  examination  of  all  the  relics  from  each 
mound,  and  by  visiting  the  grounds,  examining  the  persons  who  assisted  in  the 
exploration  and  the  neighbors  who  live  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mounds.  All  the 
relics  under  suspicion  have  been  found  within  fifty  miles  of  the  city  of  Davenport, 
and  several  of  the  most  ^mportant  (both  tablets)  almost  within  the  city  limits.  We 
believe  that  such  an  investigation  would  be  of  considerable  benefit,  and  feel  quite 
certain  that  the  result  would  show  that,  whatever  other  conclusions  might  be 
arrived  at,  the  members  of  the  Davenport  Academy  have  been  acting  in  good  faith, 
a  fact  which  seems  to  be  doubted  by  some. 

"Asking  your  pardon  for  the  length  of  this  letter,  I  am,  sir, 
"Very  respectfully  yours, 

"J.   DUNCAN  PUTNAM.* 

*  If  it  is  objected  to  Mr.  Putnam  that,  as  an  entomologist,  he  was  disqualified  as  a  judge,  it 
may  also  he  objected  to  Mr.  Henshaw  that,  as  an  ornithologist,  he  was  disqualified  as  a  critic. 
While  it  might  be  considered  unbecoming  in  the  writer  to  speak  in  terms  of  commendation  of  a 
son,  it  will  not  be  thought  improper  to  present  the  testimony  of  another  as  to  the  qualifications 
of  this  young  scientist.  Prof.  Asa  Gray,  who  had  excellent  opportunities  for  forming  an 
opinion,  says  of  him:  "What  struck  me  in  my  intercourse  with  Putnam  was  his  sobriety  of 
judgment  and  simplicity  of  spirit.  Never  have  I  seen  a  cooler  and,  as  we  say,  more  level,  head 
upon  young  shoulders."  (Proceedings  of  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Vol.  III., 
P-  *'5-) 


UI(-  S. —  Regarding  the  interpretation  to  be  put  upon  these  tablets  and  pipes, 
there  is  room  for  a  vast  difference  of  opinion.  They  may  be  three  hundred  or  they 
may  be  one  thousand  years  old;  they  may  have  been  made  in  the  locality  where 
found,  or  they  may  have  been  brought  from  a  distance.  These  and  many  other 
questions  will  probably  require  many  years  of  investigation  to  settle,  if,  indeed, 
they  can  be  settled.  J.  D.  P." 

In  these  contemporary  accounts,  made  by  gentlemen  not  unknown 
among  men  of  science,  and  who  were  familiar  with  all  the  circum 
stances  connected  with  these  discoveries,  we  find  striking  confirma 
tion  of  the  explicit  testimony  given  by  the  explorers,  as  to  the  genu 
ineness  of  these  relics. 

This  rapid  review  will  serve  in  some  measure  to  recall  the  circum 
stances  surrounding  the  discoveries  in  question,  and  in  a  slight  degree 
to  indicate  their  great  scientific  value.  If  their  authenticity  is  estab 
lished,  then  archaeologists  will  find  in  them  strong  corroborative  evi 
dence  that  man  and  the  mastodon  were  contemporary  on  this  conti 
nent,  and  that  the  Mound-builders  were  a  race  anterior  to  the  ancestors 
of  the  present  American  Indians,  and  of  higher  type  and  more 
advanced  civilization.  As  this  conclusion  would  conflict  with  the 
theory  announced  by  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  Mr.  Henshaw  was 
compelled  to  discredit  these  important  discoveries.*  Before  his 
"destructive  criticism"  the  characters  of  men  and  the  verities  of 
science  must  alike  be  swept  away  to  make  room  for  a  favorite  theory. 
It  was  doubtless  unfortunate  for  the  Davenport  Academy  that  its 
remarkable  discoveries  impeded  the  progress  of  this  knight-errant  of 
science  ;t  but  if  its  elephant  pipes  and  inscribed  tablets  were  authentic 
and  genuine,  then  his  favorite  theory  would  seem  to  be  at  fault.  He 
does  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  throw  discredit  upon  these  relics,  to 
assail  the  honesty  of  the  discoverer,  and  to  impale  with  his  scathing 

*  We  must  not  be  understood  to  condemn  all  "theory"  as  without  use  in  scientific  research. 
We  only  condemn  its  abuse.  It  must  be  conceded  that  theory  is  a  tireless  pioneer  of  progress, 
and  has  inspired  many  a  great  worker  in  science  to  follow  its  light  into  vast  unknown  seas, 
until,  as  with  Columbus,  a  new  continent  has  dawned  upon  his  vision.  Let  archaeologists  there 
fore,  if  they  please,  weave  their  "theories"  out  of  the  very  gossamers  of  thought,  if  so  be  it 
induce  them  to  delve  more  industriously  in  earth- work  and  mound  for  their  "facts."  In  the 
dawning  light  the  unsubstantial  theory  may  melt  away,  but  the  ultimate  facts  will  remain,  an 
imperishable  possession.  . 

-rThe  appellation  in  the  text  is  not  undeserved.  Mr.  Henshaw  presents  an  "illustration" 
of  a  tailless  elephant  which  is  itself  a  fraud;  he  then  assumes  that  all  the  relics  in  question  were 
the  "finds"  of  "one  individual,"  which  is  false.  Having  thus  conjured  through  his  imagina 
tion  this  unreal  state  of  "facts,"  he  then  triumphantly  proceeds  to  demolish  it!  Fora  parallel 
to  this  performance  we  must  resort  to  fiction.  We  shall  find  its  analogue  in  the  memorable  tilt 
of  tlu  valorous  Knight  of  La  Mancha  with  the  unoffending  windmills! 


censure  the  institution  that  published  them  to  the  world.  Tt  is,  there 
fore,  full  time  for  a  calm  and  thorough  review  of  all  the  circumstances 
surrounding  these  discoveries,  with  trie  view  of  finally  disposing  of  all 
questions  as  to  their  authenticity. 

That  we  may  not  in  the  slightest  degree  misrepresent  the  Bureau  of 
Ethnology,  or  its  champion,  Mr.  Henshaw,  we  will  extract  from  this 
remarkable  paper  a  few  choice  specimens  as  illustrations  of  its  tone 
and  temper.  Disregarding  entirely  the  strong  evidences  of  the  authen 
ticity  of  these  relics  which  we  have  thus  plainly  presented.  Mr.  Hen 
shaw  proceeds  to  assail  them  with  this  "destructive  criticism:" 

"In  considering  the  evidence  afforded  by  these  pipes  of  a  knowledge  of  the  mas 
todon  on  the  part  of  the  Mound-builder,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  their 
authenticity  as  specimens  of  the  Mound-builder's  art  has  been  seriously  called  in 
question.  Possibly  the  fact  that  tJic  same  person  was  instrumental  in  bringing  to 
light  both  of  the  pipes  has  had  largely  to  do  with  this  suspicion,  especially  when  it 
was  remembered  that,  although  explorers  had  been  remarkably  active  in  the  same 
region,  it  has  fallen  to  the  good  fortune  of  no  one  else  to  find  anything  conveying 
the  most  distant  suggestion  of  the  mastodon.  *  The  remarkable 

archaeological  instinct  which  has  guided  the  finder  of  these  pipes  has  led  him  to  some 
more  important  discoveries.  By  the  aid  of  his  divining-rod  he  has  succeeded  in 
unearthing  some  of  the  most  remarkable  tablets  which  have  thus  far  rewarded  the 
diligent  search  of  the  mound  explorer. 

^ Arcfueologists  must  certainly  deem  it  unfortunate  that,  outside  of  tlie  IViscon- 
sin  mound,  the  only  evidence  of  the  coexistence  of  t/ie  Mound-builder  and  tlie  mas 
todon  should  reach  the  scientific  world  through  tlie  agency  of  one  individual.  S<> 
derived,  each  succeeding  carving  of  the  mastodon,  be  it  more  or  less  accurate, 
instead  of  being  accepted  by  archaeologists  as  cumulative  evidence  tending  to  estab 
lish  the  genuineness  of  the  sculptured  testimony  showing  that  the  Mound-builder 
and  mastodon  were  coeval,  will  be  viewed  with  ever-increasing  suspicion.  *  * 
*  *  Hearing  in  mind  the  many  attempts  at  archaeological  fraud  that  recent 
years  have  brought  to  light,  archaeologists  have  a  right  to  demand  that  objects 
which  afford  a  basis  for  such  important  deductions  as  the  coeval  life  of  the  Mound- 
builder  and  mastodon  should  be  above  the  slightest  suspicion,  not  only  in  respect  to 
their  resemblances,  but  as  regards  the  circumstances  of  their  discovery.  If  they  are 
not  above  suspicion,  the  science  of  archaeology  can  better  afford  to  wait  for  further 
and  more  certain  evidence  than  to  commit  itself  to  theories  which  may  prove 
stumbling-blocks  to  truth,  until  that  indefinite  time  when  further  investigation  shall 
show  their  illusory  nature."* 

\Ve  find  here  an  abundance  of  hints,  innuendoes,  imaginings,  suspi 
cions  without  the  statement  of  a  fact  to  justify  them.  Hud  it  been 
more  specific,  this  paper  would  have  had  more  force.  In  a  grave  sci- 

*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Kthnolojfy,  Washington,  iSSo-Si,  pp.  1^6,  1^7,  and  iyS 
(•'Animal  Carvings  from  Mounds  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,"  by  H.  W.  Henshaw). 


-  14- 

entific  essay,  controverting  the  authenticity  of  some  very  important  dis 
coveries,  it  should  have  been  stated  when,  where,  how,  by  whom,  and  for 
what  reasons  the  genuineness  of  tfiese  relics  had  been  "seriously  called 
in  question."  To  controvert  a  statement  with  a  sneer  is  the  peculiar 
achievement  of  the  ordinary  polemic,  and  cannot  be  set  down  among 
accepted  scientific  methods. 

In  entering  upon  his  work  of  demolition,  it  was  open  to  Mr.  Hen- 
shaw  to  make  some  show  of  thorough  investigation  and  fair  treatment. 
The  circumstances  called  for  it.  He  occupied  a  conspicuous  position 
and  wielded  large  influence.  If  his  criticism  was  well  founded,  it 
would  serve  a  useful  purpose  in  driving  charlatans  from  the  fold  of 
truth.  If  based  only  on  partial  investigations,  and  without  substantial 
foundation,  his  censure  would  tend  to  destroy  confidence  in  all  histor 
ical  evidence,  discourage  original  research,  and  poison  truth  at  its  very 
fountain-head.  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Henshaw  was  forced  by  the  exi 
gencies  of  his  theory  to  assail  these  discoveries,  archaeologists  had  a 
right  to  expect  that  he  would  make  thorough  examination  into  the 
evidences  of  their  genuineness;  that  he  would  visit  the  scene  of  these 
explorations  and  take  careful  note  of  the  surroundings;  that  he  would 
make  searching  inquiry  as  to  the  character  and  reliability  of  the  discov 
erers;  that  he  would  closely  question  the  members  of  the  Davenport 
Academy  as  to  the  existence  of  any  suspicious  circumstances;  that  he 
would  make  critical  inspection  of  the  relics  themselves  to  note  pecu 
liarities  which  might  escape  an  eye  less  thoroughly  trained  than  his  own  ; 
and  that,  in  this  just  and  judicious  manner,  he  would  seek  to  satisfy  all 
reasonable  scruples  of  the  earnest  and  conscientious  seeker  after  truth. 
All  this  was  easy  for  Mr.  Henshaw,  for  he  had  at  his  command  unlimited 
resources.  It  will  be  learned  with  surprise  that  he  did  none  of  these 
things.  This  feeling  will  be  increased  to  astonishment  when  it  is  ascer 
tained  that,  instead  of  adopting  these  wise  precautions,  Mr.  Henshaw 
sei/ed  with  avidity  upon  a  stray  paper,  written  by  a  gentleman  in  no 
way  connected  with  the  Davenport  Academy,  imperfectly  illustrated 
with  some  coarse  wood-cuts,  and  published  in  an  Kastern  maga/.ine, 
and  that  he  made  this  second-hand  information  the  poor  excuse  for  his 
unscientific  screed.  When,  in  addition  to  all  this,  it  is  found  that  Mr. 
Henshaw  never  consulted  the  extensive  correspondence  concerning 
these  relics  in  the  possession  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  appa 
rently  never  gave  even  a  passing  glance  to  the  photographs  of  these 
elephant  pipes  in  its  museum,  arch;eologists  will  regard  with  just  resent 
ment  these  scientific  delinquencies  of  this  eminent  gentleman. 


In  that  portion  of  his  paper  relating  to  "animal  carvings,"  Mr.  Hen- 
shaw  makes  the  statement  that  the  celebrated  "  Klephant  Mound"  of 
Wisconsin  represents  neither  tusks  nor  tail,  and  that  the  sculptors  of 
the  "elephant  pipes,"  taking  that  mound  for  a  model,  have  even  imi 
tated  these  omissions!  Through  these  similarities  Mr.  Henshaw  sug 
gests  an  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  these  relics!  As  to  the 
absence  of  "tusks"  in  both  mound  and  pipes,  Mr.  Henshaw  is  doubt 
less  correct.  '  This  omission  in  the  pipes,  however,  could  be  suffi 
ciently  accounted  for  from  the  difficulty  the  ancient  artist  would  expe 
rience  in  representing  them  in  the  soft  sandstone  used  for  the  purpose 
of  this  carving.  As  will  be  seen,  Mr.  Barber  adopts  this  view  : 

"It  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  singular  fact  that  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  this 
pachyderm,  the  prominent  tusks,  should  have  been  omitted  both  in  the  pipe  sculp 
ture  and  the  'big  elephant  mound,'  if  the  ancient  Americans  were  acquainted  with 
the  model.  The  long,  slender,  curved  tusks,  however,  would  be  difficult  to  imitate, 
either  in  the  miniature  stone  sculptures  or  the  embankments  of  earth,  and  might 
have  been  purposely  ignored."* 

In  the  argument  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  based  upon  the  absence  of  the 
"tail"  in  these  carvings,  he  is  peculiarly  unfortunate.  He  has  been 
misled,  no  doubt,  by  the  faulty  "illustrations,"  which  alone  he  must 
have  consulted,  inasmuch  as  in  each  of  these  pipes  the  "tail"  is  well 
developed.  It  will  also  be  found  clearly  represented  in  the  photo 
graphs  sent  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution  ;  in  the  illustrations  of  the 
pipes,  given  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Davenport  Academy,  and  in 
the  stamp  on  the  cover  of  the  volume.  So,  too,  in  the  "Prehistoric 
America"  of  Nadaillac,  quite  recently  introduced  to  the  American 
public  by  a  noted  archaeologist  (Mr.  Dall),  we  find  an  illustration  of 
one  of  these  identical  elephant  pipes,  with  the  missing  "tail"  in  full 
view  !  In  the  light  of  these  facts,  the  singular  argument  of  Mr.  Hen 
shaw  will  be  read  with  amusement.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"It  is  also  remarkable  t/iat  in  neither  of  these  pipes  is  the  tail  indicated, 
although  a  glance  at  the  other  sculptures  will  show  that  in  the  full-length  figures 
this  member  is  invariably  shown.  ///  respect  to  these  omissions  the  pipes  from 
ICKVO.  are  strikingly  suggestive  of  the  elephant  mound  of  Wisconsin,  with  the 
peculiarities  of  which  the  sculptor,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  might  almost  be 
supposed  to  have  been  acquainted.  It  certainly  must  be  looked  upon  as  a  curious 
coincidence  that  carvings  found  at  a  point  so  remote  from  the  elephant  mound,  and 
presumably  the  work  of  other  hands,  should  so  closely  copy  the  imperfections  of 

that  mound,  "t 

' 


*  American  Naturalist  for  April,  1882,  p.  277. 

f  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Kthnology,  iSSo-Si,  p.  156. 


This  ludicrous  blunder  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Henshaw  dearly  reveals 
the  culpable  carelessness  of  his  scientific  methods."  It  will  be  found, 
moreover,  upon  careful  examination,  that  the  differences  between  the 
Wisconsin  mound  and  the  elephant  pipes  are  more  numerous  than 
their  resemblances — -the  full-length  proboscis  and  the  tail,  ears,  eyes, 
and  mouth,  all  being  fully  represented  in  the  pipes  and  wanting  in  the 
mound;  and  hence,  in  the  one  point  of  similarity,  from  the  absence  of 
tusks,  there  is  no  sufficient  basis  for  his  argument.  In  this  connection 
it  may  be  mentioned  as  at  least  a  curious  coincidence  that  the  repre 
sentation  of  the  elephant  in  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia  has  the  same 
omission. 

The  absence  of  "ivory"  relics  in  the  mounds  is  also  urged  by  Mr. 
Henshaw  to  strengthen  his  argument.  A  sufficient  explanation  of  this 
circumstance  will  be  found  in  the  accepted  hypothesis  that  at  the  era 
of  the  Mound-builders,  the  elephant  and  mastodon  must  have  nearly 
reached  the  point  of  extinction  on  this  continent,  and  hence  would  be 
infrequently  seen  and  the  article  of  "ivory"  quite  uncommon.  Assum 
ing  this  as  a  fact,  it  will  furnish  a  reasonable  explanation  both  of  the 
absence  of  ivory  in  the  mounds  and  of  imperfect  representations  in 
the  carvings.  It  is,  moreover,  quite  within  the  range  of  probability 
that  future  explorations  of  innumerable  mounds,  still  unopened,  may 
bring  to  light  the  missing  relics. t 

A  singular  perversion  of  facts,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  still 
remains  to  be  noted.  After  quoting  at  length  from  a  communication 
addressed  to  Mr.  Barber  by  the  President  of  the  Davenport  Academy, 
wherein  it  is  clearly  stated  that  one  of  the  elephant  pipes  was  found  by 
Peter  Mare,  an  illiterate  German  farmer,  and  the  other  was  discovered 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Blumer,  Mr.  Henshaw,  curiously  enough,  proceeds  as 
follows : 

"It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  the  same  gentleman  was  instrumental  in 
bringing  to  light  the  two  specimens  constituting  the  present  supply  of  elephant 

*  Mr.  Henshaw  manifests  /.eal  in  the  exposure  of  deceptions,  and  yet  the  very  representa 
tions  of  our  elephant  pipes  employed  by  him  to  embellish  his  paper  are  themselves  archaeological 
"frauds"  of  singular  enormity;  and  as  the  unfortunate  citizen  found  with  the  kit  of  the  coun 
terfeiter  in  his  grip-suck  is  required  by  the  law  to  justify  his  possession,  so  Mr.  Henshaw  may 


properly  be  called  upon  to 
reader  who  will  compare  the 
ings,  or  even  in  the  recent 
Mr.  Henshaw's  argument  \ 


\ plain  the  origin  of  these  "tailless"  illustrations.  The  curious 
i  with' the  true  representations!  as  found  in  the  Academy  Proceed- 
-ork  of  Xadaillac,  will  find  himself  in  "serious  doubt"  whether 
as  framed  to  fit  his  fancy  illustrations,  or  the  illustrations  were 


designed  to  support  his  arg   ment. 

fin  the  American  Antiquarian  for  March,  1880,  Rev.  S.  D.  Peet  announced  the  discovery  of 
one  of  these  pipes,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  clearly  represented  the  "elephant." 


pipes.  /'//<•  remarkable  arc/ncological  instinct  which  has  guided  the  finder  of  these 
pipes  has  led  him  to  even  more  important  discoveries.  By  the  aid  of  his  divining- 
rod  he  has  succeeded  in  unearthing  some  of  the  most  remarkable  inscribed  tablets 
which  have  thus  far  rewarded  the  diligent  search  of  the  mound  explorer." 

The  unfounded  and  ungenerous  insinuations  contained  in  this  re 
markable  passage  will  require  neither  commentary  nor  condemnation. 
When  it  is  remembered  that  no  less  than  six  highly  respected  citizens 
were  engaged  in  these  explorations,  and  no  less  than  three  were  present 
at  each  discovery,  and  when  it  is  further  noted  that  the  person  who 
unearthed  the  inscribed  tablets  is  not  "the  same  gentleman"  who  dis 
covered  the  elephant  pipes,  and  that  the  pipes  themselves  were  discov 
ered  by  different  individuals,  archaeologists  may  well  conclude  that  a 
writer  so  reckless  in  the  use  of  his  "facts"  is  wholly  unqualified  for  the 
important  work  he  has  undertaken.  Deductions  so  loosely  made  are 
many  degrees  beneath  the  dignity  of  serious  scientific  criticism. 

In  all  this  "destructive  criticism,"  which  Major  Powell  commends  as 
"successful,"  the  only  "fact"  presented  as  a  basis  for  their  sweeping 
"suspicions"  is  this  same  fictitious  statement,  that  the  explorer  was 
alone  when  lie  made  his  discoveries.  It  would  seem,  in  the  view  of 
Mr.  Henshaw,  that  explorers  should  go  to  their  work  with  a  body 
guard  of  affidavit-makers,  or,  peradventure,  with  some  accredited  rep 
resentative  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  to  verify  each  discovery;  and 
that,  unless  so  witnessed,  such  discovery  must  be  discredited.  As  the 
finding  of  many  of  these  relics  is  accidental,  and  often  by  men  having 
little  appreciation  of  their  scientific  value,  the  adoption  of  so  narrow  a 
rule  would  eliminate  from  our  museums  some  of  the  most  remarkable 
mementoes.  This  low  estimate  of  human  nature  does  not  correctly 
represent  the  liberal  spirit  of  pure  science.  All  of  us  can  point  to 
earnest  and  disinterested  workers,  impelled  by  the  love  of  science, 
with  no  thought  of  gain,  whose  single,  simple  word  would  be  received 
with  absolute  trust,  when  the  carefully  verified  narratives  of  a  crowd 
of  professional  collectors,  delving  for  hire,  would  be  regarded  with 
well-founded  distrust.  Had  Mr.  Henshaw  taken  the  trouble  to  ascer 
tain  this  important  fact,  he  would  have  found  that  the  principal  discov 
erer  of  the  inscribed  tablets  belonged  to  this  select  circle  of  voluntary 
workers,  and  that,  in  his  own  home,  his  word  was  beyond  question 
and  his  character  above  reproach.  In  this  connection  it  may  properly 
be  stated  that  Mr.  Gass.  who,  as  the  discoverer  of  these  unique  relics, 
is  assailed  by  Mr.  Henshaw,  is  now  preaching  to  a  congregation  at 
Postville,  in  northern  Iowa,  where  he  is,  as  he  everywhere  has  been, 


highly  esteemed  by  his  people.  He  is  a  good  classical  scholar,  well- 
grounded  in  Hebrew,  but  with  a  decided  scientific  bent  of  mind,  which 
accounts  for  his  perseverance  and  enthusiasm  in  these  archaeological 
explorations.  It  would  seem  that  his  fine  abilities,  extensive  attain 
ments,  high  social  position,  and  spotless  character  should  have  shielded 
him  from  attack ;  and  if,  peradventure,  it  ever  falls  to  the  lot  of  his 
assailants  to  themselves  encounter  "destructive  criticism,-"  it  will  then 
serve  them  in  good  stead  should  they  be  able  to  confront  it  with  as 
clean  a  record. 

The  unjustifiable  attack  made  by  Mr.  Henshaw  upon  the  scientific 
character  of  Mr.  Gass  is  followed  with  the  warning  that,  in  future, 
all  such  explorations  must  cease,  and  enforced  with  the  dire  threatvthat 
any  more  such  discoveries  will  surely  encounter  the  "ever-increasing 
suspicion"  of  archaeologists !  We  will  repeat  this  unique  paragraph, 
and  bespeak  for  it  careful  attention,  as  a  scientific  curiosity : 

"Archaeologists  must  certainly  deem  it  unfortunate  that,  outside  of  the  Wiscon 
sin  mound,  the  only  evidence  of  the  coexistence  of  the  Mound-builder  and  the  mas 
todon  should  reach  the  scientific  world  through  the  agency  oj  one  individual.  So 
derived,  each  succeeding  carving  of  the  mastodon,  be  it  more  or  less  accurate,  in 
stead  of  being  accepted  by  archaeologists  as  cumulative  evidence  tending  to  estab 
lish  the  genuineness  of  the  sculptured  testimony  showing  that  the  Mound-builder  and 
mastodon  were  coeval,  will  be  viewed  with  ever-increasing  suspicion." 

As  will  be  perceived,  in  reading  this  passage,  the  condemnation  is 
absolute,  the  prohibition  complete !  In  the  view  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  no 
genuine  elephant  pipe  has  been,  or  can  be,  discovered.  The  discov 
ery  of  a  new  elephant  pipe,  he  considers,  would  not  confirm  the 
previous  discovery,  but,  instead,  would  add  to  the  "suspicion"  of  its 
genuineness !  The  guilt  of  the  explorer,  in  his  distorted  vision,  in 
creases  with  his  success !  The  possibility  of  conscientious  research  is 
thus  denied  to  the  solitary  student  of  science.  As  we  turn  over  the 
pages  of  this  writer,  the  air  seems  murky  with  "doubts"  and  "suspi 
cions,"  with  "frauds"  and  "forgeries."  The  mandates  he  issues  appear 
to  have  been  framed  for  a  company  of  convicts!  Now,  if  this  arrogant 
assumption,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  was  not  utterly  puerile,  it  would 
be  simply  "monstrous!"'  That  such  doctrines  should  have  emanated 
from  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  "will  be  viewed  with  ever-increasing" 
wonder.  "Archaeologists  must  certainly  deem  it  unfortunate"  that  an 

*This  strong  adjective  is  quoted  from  the  private  communication  of  a  well-known  archaeolo 
gist,  and  was  used  by  him  to  express  his  distrust  with  the  extraordinary  doctrines  announced  by 
Mr.  Henshaw  in  the  above  passage. 


institution   established   "for  the  increase   and  diffusion  of  knowledge" 
should  thus  endeavor  to  discourage  research  and  stifle  thought ! 

Archaeologists  will  not  fail  to  notice  the  bold,  unequivocal  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Henshaw,  that  the  "only  evidence  of  the  coexistence  of 
the  Mound-builder  and  mastodon"  is  such  as  may  be  furnished  by  these 
elephant  pipes  and  inscribed  tablets.  That  any  gentleman,  who  had 
passed  the  alphabet  of  archaeology,  could  have  the  hardihood  to  con 
front  its  extensive  literature  with  such  a  statement,  is  quite  unaccount 
able.  Turning  to  the  accepted  records  of  archaeology,  among  which 
may  be  cited  Lubbock's  "Prehistoric  Times"  and  Foster's  "Prehis 
toric  Races  in  the  United  States,"  we  find  many  other  interesting 
discoveries,  earlier  in  date,  of  like  character  and  equal  importance 
with  these  elephant  pipes  and  inscribed  tablets.  We  will,  at  this  time, 
only  call  attention  to  some  of  the  more  important  of  these  relics  which 
seem  to  furnish  valuable  evidence  as  to  "the  coexistence  of  the  Mound- 
builder  and  mastodon."  We  now  refer  to  the  following: 

First .  We  find,  in  the  transactions  of  the  St.  Louis  Academy  of  Sciences,  in 
1857,  a  detailed  statement,  by  Dr.  A.  C.  Koch,  of  the  remains  of  a  mastodon  found 
in  Gasconade  County,  Missouri,  and  with  it,  among  ashes,  bones,  and  rocks,  sev 
eral  arrow-heads  and  some  stone  axes,  which  relics  are  preserved  in  the  British 
Museum. 

Second.  Dr.  Dickson,  of  Natchez,  many  years  ago,  found  the  pelvic  bone  of  a 
man  with  the  remains  of  mastodon  and  megalonyx,  which  specimens  are  preserved 
in  the  museum  of  the  Philadelphia  Academy  of  Sciences. 

Third.  Count  Pourtales,  in  1848,  found,  in  Florida,  some  human  bones  in  a 
calcareous  conglomerate,  estimated  by  Agassiz  to  be  ten  thousand  years  old.  Pour- 
tales  will  be  remembered  as  the  friend  and  favorite  pupil  of  the  great  naturalist. 

Fourth.  In  an  excavation  in  New  Orleans  some  charcoal  and  a  human  skele 
ton  were  discovered,  to  which  Dr.  Dowler  attributes  an  antiquity  of  no  less  than 
fifty  thousand  years.  This  estimate  was  based  upon  the  deposits  and  forests  found 
above  the  remains,  and  as  connected  with  this  question  was  the  age  of  the  delta  of 
the  Mississippi,  it  may  be  stated  that  this  has  been  estimated  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell 
as  probably  reaching  one  hundred  thousand  years. 

Fifth.  In  1857,  Dr.  C.  F.  Winslow  sent  the  Boston  Natural  History  Society 
the  fragment  of  a  human  cranium,  found,  in  connection  with  the  bones  of  the  mas 
todon  and  elephant,  one  hundred  and  eighty  feet  below  the  surface  of  Table  Moun 
tain. 

Sixth.  Professor  Whitney  deposited  in  the  museum  of  the  State  Geological 
Society  of  California  a  human  cranium,  discovered  deep  down  in  the  gold  drift,  and 
covered  with  five  successive  overflows  of  lava. 

Seventh.  T.  T.  Cleu  contributed  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution  a  specimen  of 
ancient  basket-work,  or  "  mat  made  of  interlaced  reeds,"  found  on  Petit  Anse 
Island,  some  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  below  the  surface,  and  on  a  bed  of  rock-salt, 


20  — 

and  about  two  feet  above  it,  were  the  remains  of  the  tusks  and  bones  of  a  fossil 
elephant.      This  "mat"  is  nou>  in  t/ic  National  Museum,  at  Washington.* 

Eight/i.  In  1867,  ¥,.  W.  Hilgard  and  Dr.  E.  Fontaine,  Secretary  of  the  New 
Orleans  Academy  of  Sciences,  explored  the  location  last  above  referrred  to,  and 
discovered,  twelve  feet  below  the  surface,  and  immediately  adjoining  the  rock-salt, 
incredible  quantities  of  pottery,  mingled  with  fragments  of  the  bones  of  the  ele 
phant. 

Ninth.  Dr.  Holmes  made  a  communication  to  the  Philadelphia  Academy  of 
Sciences,  several  years  since,  in  which  he  described  the  occurrence  of  fragments  of 
pottery  in  connection  with  the  bones  of  the  mastodon  and  megatherium. 

These  are  among  the  earlier  discoveries,  familiar  to  archaeologists, 
tending  to  prove  the  coexistence  of  man  and  mastodon  on  this  conti 
nent.  While  ample  for  our  purpose,  the  list  might  be  considerably  ex 
tended.  The  details  of  these  discoveries  can  be  found  in  any  respect 
able  work  on  archaeology. t  While  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  authen 
ticity  of  some  of  the  relics  in  the  foregoing  list  has  been  "seriously 
called  in  question,"  it  will  be  found  impracticable  by  any  process  of 
"destructive  criticism,"  however  sweeping,  to  entirely  destroy  their 
weight  as  evidence,  more  or  less  valuable,  upon  this  important  ques 
tion.  Until  successfully  controverted,  they  must  stand  as  at  least 
prima  facie  proof  of  the  fact,  and  the  evidence  to  disprove  the  gen 
uineness  of  these  discoveries  must  consist  of  something  beside  misty 

*  Professor  Henry,  late  Secretary  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  affixed  to  this  remarkable 
relic  in  the  National  Museum  the  following-  interesting  sketch:  "Petit  Anse  Island  is  the  local 
ity  of  the  remarkable  mine  of  rock-salt,  discovered  during  the  civil  war,  and  from  which,  for  a 
considerable  time,  the  Southern  States  derived  a  great  part  of  their  supply  of  this  article.  The 
salt  is  almost  chemically  pure,  and  apparently  inexhaustible  in  quantity,  occurring-  in  every  part 
of  the  island  (which  is  about  five  thousand  acres  in  extent),  at  a  depth  below  the  surface  of  the 
soil  of  fifteen  or  twenty  feet.  The  fragment  of  matting-  was  found  near  the  surface  of  the  salt, 
and  about  two  feet  above  it  were  remains  of  tusks  and  bones  of  a  fossil  elephant.  The  peculiar 
interest  in  regard  to  the  specimen  is  in  its  occurrence  in  situ  two  feet  below  the  elephant  re 
mains,  and  about  fourteen  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  soil,  thus  showing  the  existence  of  man 
on  the  island  prior  to  the  deposit  in  the  soil  of  the  fossil  elephant.  The  material  consists  of  the 
outer  bark  of  the  common  southern  cane  (Arundiuarta  macrosperma),  and  has  been  preserved  for 
so  long  a  period  both  by  its  silicious  character  and  the  strongly  saline  condition  of  the  soil."  It 
thus  appears  that  Professor  Henry  regarded  this  relic  as  furnishing  valuable  evidence  of  the  co 
existence  of  man  and  the  mastodon  on  this  continent.  ("The  Archaeological  Collection  of  the 
United  States  Museum,  in  charge  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,"  by  Charles  Ran,  "  Smithso 
nian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,"  No.  287,  p.  89.) 

f  Foster's  "  Prehistoric  Races  in  the  United  States,"  pp.  52,  78;  Lubbock's  "PrehistoricTimes," 
pp.  286-288;  "Prehistoric  America,"  by  Nadaillac,  pp.  33-45:  Baldwin's  "Ancient  America," 
pp.  47-56;  "Mastodon,  Mammoth,  and  Man,"  by  MacLean,  pp.  13-20;  Maclean's  "  Mound  - 
builders,"  p.  136;  Nott  and  Gliddon's  "  Types  of  Mankind,"  p.  352;  "  Antiquity  of  Man,"  by  Sir 
Charles  Lyell,  pp.  43,  203;  Dana's  "Manual  of  Geology,"  pp.  577-578;  Transactions  of  the  St. 
Louis  Academy,  Vol.  I.,  p.  62,  1857;  "Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,"  No.  248,  "On 
the  Geology  of  Lower  Louisiana,  and  the  Salt  Deposit  on  Petit  Anse  Island,"  by  E.  W.  Hilgard, 
p.  14. 


doubts  and  suspicions.  It  thus  appears  that  the  evidence  furnished  by 
the  elephant  pipes  is  not  the  "only  evidence,"  but  is  strongly  corrobor 
ative  of  the  prior  evidence  furnished  by  the  above  discoveries  of  the 
coexistence  of  man  and  the  mastodon.  Still,  with  all  this  literature 
within  easy  reach,  Mr.  Henshaw  coolly  ignores  its  existence,  and  calmly 
informs  the  scientific  world  that  the  elephant  pipes  furnish  "the  only 
evidence"  in  support  of  that  hypothesis. 

Many  of  these  earlier  discoveries  are  noted  and  discussed  in  Sir 
John  Lubbock's  valuable  work  upon  "Prehistoric  Times,"  and  in  his 
estimate  of  their  value  to  science  he  observes  a  caution  as  commend 
able  as  it  is  discriminating.  Commenting  upon  the  discovery  narrated 
by  Dr.  Dowler,  he  expresses,  with  scientific  precision,  his  hesitation 
about  its  acceptance,  as  follows : 

"Whether,  therefore,  we  accept  Dr.  Dowler's  calculation  or  not,  it  is  obvious 
that  if  the  statements  are  thoroughly  trustworthy,  this  skeleton  certainly  must  carry 
back  the  existence  of  man  in  America  to  a  very  early  period.  Vet,  until  further 
evidence  is  obtained,  the  question  cannot,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  entirely  decided, 
and  even  if  on  a  priori  grounds,  the  idea  seems  probable,  there  does  not,  as  yet, 
appear  to  be  any  conclusive  proof  that  man  coexisted  with  the  mammoth  and  mas 
todon."  * 

It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  Sir  John  Lubbock  based  his  reason 
ing  entirely  upon  the  earlier  discoveries  we  have  enumerated,  and  we 
are  justified  in  the  conclusion  that  the  subsequent  finding  of  these  ele 
phant  pipes  and  inscribed  tablets  would  have  furnished  him  with  the 
"further  evidence"  required  to  complete  and  make  conclusive  his  chain 
of  evidence.  As  aptly  expressed  by  Dr.  Farquharson,  "in  the  elephant 
pipes  we  have  the  key-stone  of  the  arch  of  evidence  which  has  been 
building  for  so  many  years."  Nadaillac,  in  his  recent  work,  thus  states 
his  conclusions : 

"The  first  Americans,  too,  were  contemporary  with  gigantic  animals,  which,  like 
their  conquerors  of  Europe,  have  passed  away  never  to  return.  They  had  to  con 
tend  with  the  mastodon,  the  megatherium,  the  mylodon,  the  megalonyx,  the  ele 
phant,  with  a  jaguar  larger  than  that  of  the  present  day,  and  a  bear  more  formid 
able  than  that  of  the  caves.  Like  our  forefathers,  they  had  to  attack  and  overcome 
them  with  stone  hatchets,  obsidian  knives,  and  all  the  wretched  weapons  the  import 
ance  of  which  we  have  been  so  long  in  recognizing  in  America  as  in  Europe,  "t 

Neither  must  it  be  overlooked  that  Mr.  Henshaw  himself  admits  that 
the  extinction  of  the  mastodon  on  this  continent  was  a  very  recent 

*  Lubbock's  "  Prehistoric  Times."  p.  288. 

f  "  Prehistoric  America,"  by  Nadaillac,  p.  15. 


—  22  

event,  probably  within  five  hundred  years  prior  to  its  discovery,  and 
that,  inasmuch  as  an  antiquity  of  at  least  a  thousand  years  has  been 
assigned  to  the  mounds,  there  are,  therefore,  no  inherent  absurdities 
in  the  belief  that  the  Mound-builders  were  acquainted  with  the  masto 
don  ;  but  his  admission  is  qualified  with  serious  "doubts"  as  to  the  suf 
ficiency  of.  the  "proof  presented  to  substantiate  it."  In  his  eagerness 
to  find  some  support  for  his  "doubts,"  he  approaches,  if  he  does  not 
overstep,  the  limits  of  legal  libel,  in  misrepresenting  the  pipes  by  the 
use  of  false  illustrations,  and  in  charging  Mr.  Gass  with  the  perpetra 
tion  of  a  mercenary  fraud,  and  violates  all  canons  of  propriety  in  brand 
ing,  by  implication,  the  members  of  the  Davenport  Academy  as  par 
ticipants  in  this  disgraceful  deception. 

In  his  introductory  chapter,  Major  Powell  commends  Mr.  Henshaw 
to  the  public  as  "a  trained  scholar,  who  can  discern  the  germ  of  truth 
even  in  a  blundering  statement,  and  whose  own  knowledge  is  a  touch 
stone  for  the  detection  of  spurious  productions."  We  fail  to  discern  this 
wonderful  "touchstone"  in  the  deplorable  want  of  information  in  Mr. 
Henshaw  which  we  have  been  compelled  to  expose,  and  from  the 
"blundering  statements"  made  by  him,  containing  not  a  "germ  of 
truth,"  it  is  evident'his  intellectual  equipment  is  insufficient  for  a  suc 
cessful  teacher  of  archaeology.*  As  an  ornithologist  of  acknowledged 
skill  and  ability,  he  was  well  fitted  to  engage  in  the  special  research 
properly  before  him,  and  in  his  important  undertaking  he  would  have 
found  a  broad  and  unoccupied  field.  The  tracing  of  resemblances 
between  the  carvings  found  in  the  mounds  and  known  species  of  birds 
and  animals  was  a  legitimate  object,  involved  important  deductions, 
and,  if  thoroughly  and  conscientiously  executed,  the  results  must  have 
had  great  scientific  value.  Unfortunately,  as  it  turned  out,  Mr.  Hen 
shaw  was  unwilling  to  be  trammeled  by  any  such  limitations;  and 
hence,  most  unwisely  abandoning  his  special  work,  this  "naturalist," 
with  infinite  complacency,  takes  his  place  among  trained  archaeologists, 
revises  their  methods  of  exploration,  and  promulgates  new  canons  for 
archaeological  research ! 

"Now,  in  the  names  of  all  the  gods  at  once, 
Upon  what  meat  doth  this  our  Caesar  feed, 
That  he  is  grown  so  great?" 

*  In  view  of  this  attack  upon  Mr.  Gass,  the  writer  recently  submitted  some  inquiries  to  a  noted 
archaeologist  as  to  the  standing  of  Mr.  Henshaw  among  them,  and  received  this  curious  answer: 
"  Of  course  the  Bureau  has  a  right  to  attack  the  authenticity  of  anything  it  wants  to;  but  the 
insinuations  against  Mr.  Gass  are  simply  contemptible.  Of  all  forms  of  libel,  I  think  that  of 
insinuations  the  meanest.  Henshaw,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  no  standing  among  archaeologists. 
I  am  free  to  say  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  ever  heard  of  him." 


In  the  same  volume  which  contained  Mr.  Henshaw's  paper,  Mr. 
William  H.  Holmes  has  an  admirable  monograph  upon  "Art  in  Shell," 
and  in  describing  the  "Missouri  Gorget"  he  states  that  it  was  obtained 
from  unknown  persons  in  South-western  Missouri.  Upon  the  question 
of  its  genuineness,  Mr.  Holmes  remarks : 

"It  was  chalky  and  crumbling  from  decay;  the  lines  of  the  design  bear  equal  evi 
dence  with  the  general  surface  of  the  shell  of  great  age;  besides  this,  even  if  it  were 
possible  to  produce  such  a  condition  in  a  recently  carved  shell,  there  existed  no  mo 
tive  for  such  an  attempt.  Arothing  was  to  be  made  by  if,  no  benefit  could  accrue  to 
the  perpetrator  to  reward  him  for  /i  is  pains,  and,  further,  there  was  no  precedent — 
there  was  nothing  extant  that  could  serve  as  a  model  for  sue  It  a  work."* 

This  is  a  fair  canon  of  criticism>  and  if  it  is  effectual  to  establish  the 
genuineness  of  this  gorget,  the  same  rule  of  evidence  should  be  ex 
tended  to  the  elephant  pipes,  and  it  would  be  found  equally  applicable 
and  convincing.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  in  this  connection,  that  these 
pipes  condemned  by  Mr.  Henshaw  were  obtained  in  nearly  the  same 
manner  and  under  almost  exactly  similar  surroundings  with  the  "gor 
gets"  which  Mr.  Holmes  pronounces  unquestionably  genuine.  Thus, 
of  the  gorgets,  one  was  obtained  from  unknown  persons,  and  the  other 
was  discovered  by  Dr.  E.  Palmer,  a  collector  in  the  employ  of  the 
Bureau  of  Ethnology.  So,  of  the  two  elephant  pipes,  one  was  obtained 
of  a  well-known  and  honest  farmer,  and  the  other  was  discovered  in  a 
mound  by  Rev.  A.  Blumer,  with  two  assistants  as  witnesses.  As  to  the 
inscribed  tablets,  no  less  than  three  well  known  and  highly  respected 
citi/ens  were  present  at  their  discovery.  It  will  thus  be  perceived  that 
there  are  stronger  evidences  to  support  the  authenticity  of  the  pipes 
and  tablets  than  of  the  inscribed  gorgets.  Still,  under  the  high  author 
ity  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  the  latter  are  pronounced  genuine, 
while  the  former  are  condemned.  Evidently,  Mr.  Holmes  omitted  to 
confer  with  Mr.  Henshaw  concerning  his. important  deductions.  Had 
he  done  so,  doubtless  he  would  have  been  informed  by  that  gentle 
man,  with  sententious  gravity,  that  discoveries  so  important  could  not 
safely  be  received  upon  the  testimony  of  a  single  individual ;  that  the 
very  novelty  of  the  discovery  rendered  it  suspicious;  and  that  "arch 
eology  could  better  afford  to  wait  for  further  and  more  certain  evi 
dence."  With  the  possibility  of  this  "destructive  criticism"  impending 
over  his  valuable  work,  it  was  fortunate  for  Mr.  Holmes  that  the  Direc 
tor  of  the  Bureau  introduced  it  to  the  world  of  science  with  words  of 
high  commendation.  In  the  parallel  case  of  Mr.  Gass,  it  was  doubtless 

*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of   Ethnology,  iSSo-Si,  p.  303. 


—  24  — 

equally  unfortunate  that  his  valuable  contribution  to  the  cause  of  arch 
aeology  could  not  have  been  likewise  announced  by  so  imposing  a 
herald. 

Upon  the  question  of  the  authenticity  generally  of  these  Mound- 
builders'  relics,  Mr.  Holmes  advances  the  following  broad  and  liberal 
views : 

"By  accurately  ascertaining  the  authenticity  of  one  of  these  specimens,  we  estab 
lish,  so  far  as  need  be,  the  genuineness  of  all  of  the  class.  If  one  is  genuine,  that  is 
sufficient  —  the  others  may  or  may  not  be  so,  without  seriously  affecting  the  question 
at  issue;  yet  the  occurrence  of  duplicate  or  clearly  related  specimens  in  widely  sep 
arated  localities,  furnish  confirmatory  evidence  of  no  little  importance."* 

Pursuing  a  similar  line  of  thought,  Foster,  in  his  "Prehistoric  Races," 
remarks,  concerning  "the  testimony  of  a  single  witness  to  these  arch;eo- 
logical  discoveries,  that 

"Those  who  are  most  apt  to  make  discoveries  in  this  branch  of  knowledge  —  day- 
laborers —  are  the  least  apt  to  appreciate  their  value.  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
a  competent  observer  will  be  present  at  the  precise  time  when  any  relic  of  the  past 
is  disinterred.  If  such  relic  pertain  to  a  horse  or  any  other  quadruped,  we  take  the 
statement  of  the  workman  with  absolute  trust;  but  if  it  were  to  prove  of  human 
origin,  we  discredit  it."t 

In  the  absence  of  all  motive  to  deceive,  it  is  clear  that  such  testi 
mony  may  safely  be  received  by  the  scientific  inquirer  as  equally  valu 
able  in  establishing  the  genuineness  of  either  class  of  discoveries.  It 
seems  to  be  the  singular  thought  of  Mr.  Henshaw  that  if  a  solitary  ex 
plorer  discovers  anything  never  before  discovered,  it  must  be  discred 
ited  as  suspicious.  The  limitations  he  seeks  to  place  around  these 
archaeological  researches  would  have  been  effectual  to  discredit  every 
such  discovery  made  since  the  dawn  of  civilization.  J 

A  remarkable  circumstance  connected  with  the  museum  of  the  Dav 
enport  Academy,  wherein  these  pipes  and  tablets  are  deposited,  is  that 
it  has  grown  up  entirely  by  private  contributions.  The  services  of  its 
workers  have  been  rendered  gratuitously.  Its  founders  and  builders 
have  been  solely  impelled  by  the  love  of  science.  Its  location  is  far 


*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  iSSo-Si,  p.  303. 

t  Foster's  "  Prehistoric  Races,"  p.  72. 

J  Upon  these  questions  of  evidence,  Schoolcraft  quotes  from  the  "Cosmos"  of  Humholdt 
the  following  wise  observations :  "  Where  history,  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  certain  and  dis 
tinctly  expressed  evidence,  is  silent,  there  remains  only  different  degrees  of  probability;  but  an 
absolute  denial  of  all  facts  in  the  world's  history  of  which  the  evidence  is  not  distinct  appears 
to  me  no  happy  application  of  philological  and  historical  criticism." —  Cosmos,  Vol.  II.,  p.  409. 
("  History  of  the  Indian  Tribes  of  the  United  States,"  by  H.  R.  Schoolcraft.  Vol.  V.,  p.  -'7.) 


—  25  — 

removed  from  the  centers  of  wealth  and  power.  It  has  no  endowment. 
It  has  no  laborers  for  hire.  These  circumstances  are  favorable  to  the 
genuineness  of  its  discoveries.  As  no  pecuniary  reward  was  expected 
by  its  voluntary  collectors,  a  principal  motive  to  the  perpetration  of 
frauds  is  wanting.  Its  poverty  has  been  its  protection,  and  effectually 
removes  from  its  museum  of  relics  all  well-founded  suspicion  of  decep 
tion. 

The  Smithsonian  Institution,  on  the  contrary,  has  a  generous  endow 
ment.  It  is  located  in  the  capital  of  our  country,  and  is  the  recipient 
of  government  aid.  The  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  while  under  the  man 
agement  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  is  a  part  of  the  United  States 
Geological  Survey,  and  is  supported  by  liberal  appropriations.  It  ex 
pends  large  sums  in  explorations  and  in  securing  additions  to  its  col 
lections.  All  these  circumstances  are,  doubtless,  favorable  for  advanc 
ing  its  scientific  work;  and  yet,  in  an  important  sense,  its  good  fortune 
may  have  been  its  misfortune.  Its  paid  collectors,  going  up  and  down 
the  land  in  quest  of  valuable  relics,  may  be  strongly  tempted  to  mag 
nify  their  vocations  by  the  practice  of  shameless  deceptions.  Its 
wealth  may  invite  fraud.  The  modern  manufacturer  of  ancient  relics 
may  turn  his  back  upon  our  mendicant  Academy  and  offer  his  wares 
to  these  scientific  capitalists.  The  circumstances  certainly  are  such  as 
would  give  rise  to  suspicion  and  provoke  scrutiny.  That  the  Smith 
sonian  Institution  and  its  Bureau  of  Ethnology  have,  to  any  consid 
erable  extent,  been  victimized  by  this  mercenary  spirit,  we  have  no 
reason  to  believe,  and  do  not  claim.  The  considerations  advanced, 
however,  are  legitimate,  and  will  devolve  upon  its  officers  the  necessity 
of  establishing  the  authenticity  of  their  own  relics.  The  shafts  of  crit 
icism  so  ruthlessly  hurled  at  other  gleaners  in  the  same  field  may  turn 
out  to  be  dangerous  weapons,  and,  after  the  manner  of  the  ancient 
boomerang,  may,  peradventure,  return  to  smite  the  senders. 

It  is  well  known  that  a  large  number  of  the  specimens  in  the  National 
Museum  are  without  a  record,  and  as  to  some  of  them,  suspicions  may, 
not  without  reason,  be  entertained  as  to  their  authenticity.  In  the 
paper  of  Mr.  Holmes,  the  reader  will  not  have  failed  to  notice  his  fre 
quent  references  to  these  unfortunate  circumstances.  Thus,  of  the  shell 
gorget,  entitled  "The  Bird,"  he  remarks:  "The  gorget  in  question  is,  un 
fortunately,  without  a  pedigree;"*  and  of  another,  entitled  "Profile  of 
an  Eagle's  Head,"  he  makes  this  emphatic  statement:  "Like  so  many 


*"  Art  in  Shell,"  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  iSSo-Si,  pp.  ,282-285. 


-26- 

of  the  National  Museum  specimens,  it  is  practically  without  a  record — 
a  stray."  It  is,  doubtless,  because  of  these  imperfections  in  its  collec 
tions  that  its  management  has  grown  distrustful,  and  have  come  to 
consider  the  policeman  as  essential  as  the  collector  in  making  these 
explorations.  Professor  Baird  himself,  in  his  letter  of  March  i7th, 
1880,  gives  pathetic  expression  to  this  forlorn  state  of  feeling,  as  fol 
lows: 

"I  must  confess  to  a  very  considerable  degree  of  incredulity  in  regard  to  the  won 
derful  '  finds '  of  Mr.  Gass.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  so  many  shotild  fall  into  the 
hands  of  one  person.  Is  it  not  possible  that  somebody  has  interested  himself  in 
deceiving  Mr.  Gass,  and,  through  him,  the  archaeologists  of  the  north-west?  We 
have  detected  a  series  of  most  clever  forgeries  in  stone  as  perpetrated  by  parties 
living  in  eastern  Pennsylvania.  They  were  entirely  too  good  and  too  remarkable 
not  to  excite  criticism,  which  has  resulted,  I  think,  in  proving  their  falsity.  We 
shall  soon  begin  to  siispect  everything  that  is  out  of  the  routine  average  of  Amer 
ican  stone  implements" 

As  with  Major  Powell  and  Mr.  Henshaw,  it  will  be  observed  that 
Professor  Baird  gives  no  reason  for  his  "incredulity,"  other  than  that  it 
is  remarkable  that  so  many  discoveries  had  been  made  by  "one  person." 
The  answer  of  the  Corresponding  Secretary  to  this  letter  contained 
the  sufficient  explanation  that  the  success  of  Mr.  Gass  was  wholly  due 
to  his  zeal,  perseverance,  and  vigorous  use  of  the  spade.  The  fact 
that  enterprising  parties  in  another  part  of  the  country,  with  a  greedy 
eye  on  appropriations,  had  established  a  manufactory  of  stone  imple 
ments  for  the  supply  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  cannot  be  seri 
ously  advanced  as  an  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  the  Daven 
port  relics.  In  the  latter  case,  no  question  of  profit  intervenes,  and 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  all  motive  to  deceive. 

In  introducing  to  the  public  Mr.  Henshaw's  paper,  and  those  accom 
panying  it,  Major  Powell  makes  use  of  the  following  emphatic  lan 
guage  :  * 

"Each  of  the  papers  appended  to  this  report  has  its  proper  place  in  the  general 
scheme,  the  scope  of  which  they,  together  with  the  other  publications  before  noted, 
seem  to  indicate,  and  each  was  prepared  with  a  special  purpose." 

In  the  light  of  this  announcement,  it  will  be  instructive  to  carefully 
read,  in  connection  with  the  monograph  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  that  of  Mr. 
Holmes,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made.  In  describing 
their  respective  discoveries  they  were  compelled  to  traverse  the  same 
ground.  The  shells  under  consideration  by  Mr.  Holmes  were  also 


*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  1880-81,  p.  xxvi.,  Introductory. 


2  7  

relics  of  the  Mound-builders.  Among  these  remarkable  relics  recov 
ered  from  ancient  mounds  were  engraved  gorgets.  These  shells  were 
probably  worn  about  the  neck,  or  on  the  breast.  In  another  depart 
ment  they  were  the  complements  of  our  "inscribed  tablets,"  and  were 
discovered  in  similar  tumuli  in  other  parts  of  the  country.  On  them 
are  represented  the  cross,  birds,  spiders,  serpents,  and  the  human  face 
and  form.  By  a  series  of  comparisons  with  Mexican  and  Peruvian  art, 
Mr.  Holmes  traces  the  origin  of  these  interesting  relics  to  the  Aztecs 
of  ancient  Mexico.  The  concluding  thoughts  of  Mr.  Holmes  are  as 
follows :  * 

"As  an  ornament,  this  Missouri  gorget  is  a  member  of  a  great  family  that  is 
probably  northern;  but  the  design  engraved  upon  it  affiliates  with  the  art  of  Mex 
ico,  and  so  close  and  striking  are  the  resemblances  that  accident  cannot  account  for 
them,  and  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  it  must  be  the  offspring  of  the  same 
beliefs  and  customs  and  the  same  culture  as  the  art  of  Mexico.1'1 

These  conclusions  of  Mr.  Holmes  appear  in  singular  contrast  with 
the  labored  effort  of  Mr.  Henshaw  to  disprove  the  Mexican  origin  of 
the  animal  carvings  found  in  the  mounds;  and,  with  all  due  deference 
to  Major  Powell,  the  perplexed  reader  will  find  it  difficult  to  discover  a 
"proper  place"  for  these  two  important  papers  in  any  "general  scheme." 
A  popular  scientific  magazine  thus  refers  to  these  conflicting  deduc 
tions  :  t 

"It  seems  almost  aggravating  that  in  the  same  volume  wherein  Mr.  Henshaw 
[denies]  +  and  effectually  disproves  the  Mexican  origin  of  many  animal  forms  in 
the  mound-pipes,  new  forms  should  be  described,  concerning  which  the  author  says 
that  they  '  must  be  the  offspring  of  the  same  beliefs  and  customs  and  the  same  cul 
ture  of  the  arts  of  Mexico.'  "§ 

In  now  bringing  these  notes  to  a  close,  it  is,  perhaps,  no  more  than 
justice  to  Mr.  Henshaw  to  state  that  in  his  attack  upon  the  authen- 

*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  1880-81,  p.  305. 

f  American  Naturalist,  September,  1884. 

J  Misprint. 

§  Major  Powell  himself  was  evidently  impressed  with  this  remarkable  parallel,  drawn  by 
Mr.  Holmes,  between  the  relics  from  the  mounds  and  the  art  of  Mexico;  and",  in  presenting  this 
masterly  monograph  to  the  public,  as  if  feeling  the  necessity  of  tempering  it  to  some  show  of 
consistency  with  his  own  theories,  the  Director  thoughtfully,  adds  the  following  reservation: 
"  A  deduction,  not  made  by  the  author,  may,  perhaps,  be  suggested  by  the  comparison  from  the 
art  and  literature  furnished  by  him,  to  the  effect  that  the  artistic  methods  of  the  Mound-builder 
are  traceable  among  the  historic  tribes  of  North  America,  tending  to  shoiv  that,  contrary  to 
the  once  current  belief,  based  exclusively  on  the  same  evidence,  there  is  no  marked  racial  dis 
tinction  bet-ween  them."  Major  Powell  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  this  is  "a  deduction  not 
made  by  the  author  /"  When,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  observed  how  directly  it  conflicts  with  the 
conclusions  of  Mr.  Holmes,  as  stated  in  the  above  paragraph,  it  affords  an  amusing  illustration 
of  the  eagerness  of  the  accomplished  Director  to  maintain  his  theory. 


-28  — 

ticity  of  the  relics  in  question  he  does  not  then  stand  alone,  but  is  ably 
sustained  by  the  Director  of  the  Bureau.  In  his  introductory  chapter, 
Major  Powell  writes  as  follows : 

"It  will  be  the  duty  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  to  devote  careful  attention  to 
this  interesting  field  of  archaeology.  But  those  who  have  hitherto  conducted  these 
researches  have  betrayed  a  predetermination  to  find  something  inexplicable  on  the 
simple  hypothesis  of  a  continuous  Indian  population,  and  were  swept  by  blind  zeal 
into  serious  errors,  even  when  they  were  not  imposed  upon  by  frauds  and  forgeries. 
Some  of  the  latter,  consisting  of  objects  manufactured  for  sale  to  supply  the  man 
ifested  craving  after  the  marvelous,  and  even  inscribed  tablets  suggesting  alpha 
betic  or  phonetic  systems,  have  recently  been  exposed  bv  the  agency  of  this  Bureau. "  * 

This  was  the  first  information  given  to  the  public  that  any  such 
"frauds  and  forgeries"  had  "recently  been  exposed"  by  the  Bureau,  and 
we  look  in  vain  through  its  publications  for  the  details  of  these  alleged 
extraordinary  exposures !  As  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Henshaw,  it  will  be 
noticed  that  these  extravagant  denunciations  of  the  relics  in  the  Dav 
enport  Academy  are  made  by  Major  Powell  without  reference  to  a 
particle  of  evidence  to  sustain  them,  or  even  the  suggestion  of  a  sus 
picious  circumstance  in  connection  with  them.  But  we  have,  as  fellow- 
sufferers,  the  grand  company  of  archaeologists  the  world  over,  for  the 
Director  of  the  Bureau,  while  he  discredits  our  relics,  also  condemns 
the  work  of  all  "who  have  hitherto  conducted  these  researches."  None 
so  worthy  as  to  escape  his  denunciation ! 

Before  closing  this  paper,  it  will  be  instructive,  in  connection  with 
this  "new  departure"  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  to  recall  the  curious 
circumstance  that  the  first  publication  ever  made  by  the  Smithsonian 
Institution  was  the  great  work  of  Squier  and  Davis,  entitled  "Ancient 
Monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Valley."  In  this  work  an  exactly  oppo 
site  theory  from  that  held  by  Major  Powell  was  confidently  advanced 
and  strongly  supported.  The  reader  will  not  have  failed  to  notice 
that  a  considerable  portion  of  Mr.  Henshaw's  paper  is  devoted  to  an 
attempted  refutation  of  their  important  deductions.  In  contrasting  the 
views  of  Squier  and  Davis  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Mound-builders  with 


*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Kthnology,    1880— Si,  pp.  xxxi. -xxxii.,  Introductory. 

The  severity  of  the  language  italicized  can  only  be  fully  appreciated  by  reference  to  the  paper 
of  Mr.  Henshaw,  which  Major  Powell  thus  introduces  and  endorses.  In  that  paper  Mr.  Hen« 
shaw  makes  direct  mention  of  the  Davenport  Academy,  and  selects  the  relics  in  question  for 
condemnation.  Major  Powell,  therefore,  clearly  aims  his  shafts  at  these  relics,  and  having-  con 
signed  the  "  pipes  "  to  a  commercial  hell,  looks  about  for  some  lower  deep  for  "even  inscribed 
tablets!  "  If  this  is  the  standard  of  criticism,  and  these  the  critics,  explorers  may  well  hesitate 
before  exposing  their  heads  above  an  opened  mound  to  be  pelted  with  maledictions  by  archaeolo 
gists  in  high  places,  and  may  deem  it  prudent  to  engage  in  some  less  perilous  pursuit. 


-29- 

those  advanced  by  Major  Powell,  as  clearly  presented  in  the  opening  ex 
tracts  of  this  paper,  the  reader  will  be  struck  with  the  extent  of  the  diver 
gence  between  the  earlier  and  later  deductions.  Equally  at  variance 
are  the  views  expressed  by  Squier  and  Davis  and  those  of  Mr.  Hen- 
shaw  upon  the  subject  of  ancient  art.  As  to  the  degree  of  artistic  skill 
possessed  by  the  Mound-builders,  the  former  thus  state  their  views :  * 

"Such  is  the  general  character  of  the  sculptures  found  in  the  mounds.  It  is  un 
necessary  to  say  more  than  that  as  works  of  art  they  are  immeasurably  beyond  any 
thing  which  the  North  American  Indians  are  known  to  produce,  even  at  this  day, 
with  all  the  suggestions  of  European  art  and  the  advantages  afforded  by  steel  instru 
ments.  The  only  fair  test  of  the  relative  degree  of  skill  possessed  by  the  two  races 
would  be  in  comparison  of  the  remains  of  the  mounds  with  the  productions  of  the 
Indians  before  the  commencement  of  European  intercourse;  a  comparison  with  the 
works  of  the  latter,  however,  at  any  period,  would  not  fail  to  exhibit  in  striking 
light  the  greatly  superior  skill  of  the  ancient  people." 

In  opposition  to  these  conclusions  of  Squier  and  Davis,  Mr.  Hen- 
shaw  makes  this  emphatic  statement  of  his  own  views :  t 

"Eminent  as  is  much  of  the  authority  which  thus  contends  for  an  artistic  ability 
on  the  part  of  the  Mound-builders  far  in  advance  of  the  attainments  of  the  present 
Indians  in  the  same  line,  the  question  is  one  admitting  of  argument,  and  if  some  of 
the  best  products  of  artistic  handicraft  of  the  present  Indians  be  compared  with  the 
objects  of  a  similar  nature  taken  from  the  mounds,  it  is  more  than  doubtful  if  the 
artistic  inferiority  of  the  latter-day  Indian  can  be  maintained."  £ 


*  Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  Vol.  I.,  p.  272. 

f  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  i8So-Si,  p.  123. 

J  The  fact  has  been  fairly  assumed  throughout  this  paper,  based  upon  repeated  and  emphatic 
utterances,  that  Major  Powell  and  Mr.  Henshaw,  in  seeking  for  the  artisans  of  these  mound  - 
relics,  exclude  the  Toltec  and  Aztec  races,  and  adopt  the  theory  that  these  ancient  sculptures  are 
the  artistic  handicraft  of  the  ancestors  of  the  Indian  tribes  at  present  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States.  While  it  is  doubtless  true  that  all  the  aborigines  found  on  the  American  conti 
nents  by  the  discoverers  were  designated  as  "  Indians,"  an  obvious  distinction  may  still  be  made 
between  the  semi -civilized  races  then  inhabiting  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America,  and  the 
wild,  wandering  tribes  found  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  at  that  date  frequenting 
the  region  of  the  mounds.  In  referring  to  this  distinction,  Baldwin  remarks:  "People  of  the 
ancient  Mexican  and  Central  American  race  are  not  found  farther  north  than  New  Mexico  and 
Arizona,  where  they  are  known  as  Pueblos,  or  Village  Indians.  In  the  old  time  that  was  a 
frontier  region,  and  the  Pueblos  seem  to  represent  ancient  settlers  who  went  there  from  the 
south.  There  was  the  border  line  between  the  Mexican  race  and  the  wild  Indian,  and  the  dis 
tinction  between  the  Pueblos  and  the  savage  tribes  is  every  way  uniform  and  so  great  that  it 
is  well-nigh  impossible  to  believe  they  all  belonged  to  the  same  race.  In  fact,  no  people  like  our 
wild  Indians  of  North  America  have  ever  been  found  in  Mexico,  Central  America,  or  South 
America."  In  claiming  for  these  "wild  Indians"  a  degree  of  semi-civilization  and  artistic  skill 
beyond  that  displayed  by  the  Mound -builder,  Major  Powell  rinds  himself  in  good  company. 
Lucien  Carr,  the  Marquis  De  Nadaillac,  and  a  large  number  of  cultured  archaeologists  adopt  the 
same  view.  While  the  weight  of  argument  and  authority,  however,  appears  to  be  on  the  oppo 
site  side,  and  in  favor  of  a  Mexican  origin  for  the  Mound-builder,  it  must  be  conceded  that  the 
question  is  still  an  open  one.  ("Ancient  America,"  by  John  D.  Baldwin,  pp.  217-218;  "Mounds 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley;"  "Memoirs  of  the  Kentucky  Geological  Survey,"  Vol.  II.,  1883; 
"  Prehistoric  America,"  by  Marquis  De  Nadaillnc,  p.  131,  note  3.) 


-3o- 

It  thus  becomes  quite  evident,  from  this  review,  that  it  is  a  principal 
object  of  the  present  management  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution, 
through  its  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  to  reexamine  these  early  explorations 
of  Squier  and  Davis,  and  to  reconsider,  and,  if  possible,  reverse,  their 
important  deductions. 

The  work  of  Squier  and  Davis  was  issued  by  the  Smithsonian  Insti 
tution  in  1847,  as  the  first  of  its  "Contributions  to  Knowledge."  As  its 
publication  was  to  be  the  inauguration  of  that  great  enterprise,  unu 
sual  care  and  caution  were  observed  in  the  examination  into  its  scien 
tific  merits  and  deciding  upon  its  acceptance  for  publication.  The 
work  was  well  received  by  the  illustrious  Joseph  Henry,  then  Sec 
retary  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  was  by  him  referred  to  the 
American  Ethnological  Society  of  New  York  for  further  examination. 
The  favorable  report  of  that  institution  was  subscribed  with  such  re 
spectable  names  as  Albert  Gallatin,  John  R.  Bartlett,  George  P.  Marsh, 
Samuel  C.  Morton,  Edward  Robinson,  and  W.  W.  Turner.  The  pro 
posed  publication  of  this  important  work  was  still  further  approved  by 
the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  and  is  mentioned  with 
approbation  in  a  report  made  on  December  yth,  1847,  to  Professor 
Henry,  by  a  committee  embracing  such  notable  names  in  American 
scholarship  as  Edward  Everett,  Jared  Sparks,  Benjamin  Pierce,  Henry 
W.  Longfellow,  Asa  Gray,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  Thus  strongly  recom 
mended,  the  work  of  Squier  and  Davis  made  its  appearance  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution.*  It  was  everywhere  well  re 
ceived.  Since  that  date  it  has  been  the  principal  authority  in  Ameri 
can  archaeology,  and  the  most  considerable  storehouse  of  ethnological 
information.  It  has  given  direction  to  a  generation  of  scientific  work 
ers.  Its  important  deductions  have  permeated  the  thought  of  the  best 
scholars  and  most  profound  thinkers  throughout  our  own  and  foreign 
lands.t 

Under  a  new  management  the  Smithsonian  Institution  has  underta 
ken  to  reconsider  this  great  work  of  Squier  and  Davis,  and  aims  to  re 
fute  its  important  deductions.  It  seems  to  have  been  recently  discov- 


*  Eighth  Annual  Report  Smithsonian  Institution,  pp.   133-147. 

fit  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  Professor  Baircl,  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  never  saw 
the  paper  of  Mr.  Henshaw  previous  to  its  publication.  Had  it  been  subjected  to  the  scrutiny  of 
this  eminent  and  profound  scholar,  its  careless  statements  and  loose  deductions  would  assuredly 
have  met  his  condemnation  and  prevented  its  unfortunate  publication.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Smithsonian  Institution  will  doubtless  find  it  necessary  to  exercise  a  more  careful  supervision 
over  the  publications  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  and  to  subject  them  to  somewhat  of  that 
severe  scrutiny  employed  when  the  valuable  work  of  Squier  and  Davis  was  accepted  for  publi 
cation. 


ered  that  in  its  publication  that  institution  has  not  been  engaged  in 
the  "diffusion  of  knowledge"  .at  all,  but  instead,  during  all  these  years, 
has  been  scattering  error  broadcast  through  the  land.  We  are,  there 
fore,  called  upon  to  retrace  our  steps,  to  unlearn  the  lesson  we  have  so 
long  conned,  and  to  take  our  places  at  the  feet  of  strange  teachers. 
This  is  certainly  discouraging  to  American  scholarship,  and  the  thought 
ful  student  will  wisely  pause  and  make  careful  inquiry  as  to  which, 
after  all,  is  error  —  the  earlier  or  the  later  deductions. 

Still,  it  must  be  conceded,  if  the  statements  of  the  great  work  of 
Squier  and  Davis  are  unreliable,  and  its  deductions  without  sufficient 
basis,  these  defects  cannot  be  too  early  disclosed  to  the  world  of  sci 
ence.  Such  an  exposure  would  be  a  benefaction  to  the  cause  of  truth. 
The  attempt  to  reverse  the  thought  of  an  age  is,  however,  a  most  nota 
ble  undertaking.  It  needs  great  courage,  excellent  scholarship,  and  a 
commanding  name.  It  will,  of  course,  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 
man  called  to  so  important  a  work  must  have  been  long  engaged  in 
archaeological  research,  trained  in  its  methods  of  investigation  and 
familiar  with  its  literature.  We  recall  the  names  of  noted  archaeolo 
gists,  and  wonder  who  among  them  would  have  the  temerity  to  engage 
in  this  gigantic  undertaking.  In  response  to  our  summons  none  such 
appear;  but,  instead,  the  Director  of  the  Bureau  steps  promptly  to  the 
front  and  makes  due  announcement  of  "Henry  W.  Henshaw"  as  the 
champion  of  his  theory ;  and  this  is  the  method  of  his  introduction : 

"Mr.  H.  W.  Henshaw,  skilled  as  a  naturalist,  especially  as  an  ornithologist,  and 
familiar  by  personal  experience  with  a  large  part  of  our  national  territory,  was  led 
to  examine  into  the  truth  of  these  statements,  repeated  from  author  to  author  with 
out  question  or  criticism,  and  used  as  data  in  all  discussions  on  the  mounds.  The 
result  is  the  important  paper  now  published.  His  conclusions,  from  the  evidence 
adduced,  seem  to  be  incontrovertible."  * 

And  so  the  valiant  gentleman  appointed  to  displace  Squier  and  Davis 
is  a  new-comer  in  archaeology,  but,  nevertheless,  is  "skilled  as  a  natur 
alist,  especially  as  an  ornithologist;"  and,  moreover,  is  "familiar  with  a 
large  part  of  our  national  territory ! "  With  this  unique  statement  be 
fore  us  of  Mr.  Henshaw's  qualifications  for  his  great  work,  comment 
would  be  superfluous.  The  recommendation  is  itself  a  condemnation. 
The  scientific  world  will  scarcely  consent  to  so  summary  a  displace 
ment  of  its  old  worthies,  at  the  behest  of  a  newly-fledged  archaeolo 
gist,  even  though  he  may  be  "skilled  as  a  naturalist!"  With  the  de 
thronement  of  Squier  and  Davis,  it  followed,  as  a  logical  necessity,  that, 


*  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,   1880-81,  p.  xxxii.,  Introductory. 


_32  — 

in  a  more  lowly  sphere,  our  Mr.  Gass  must  be  decapitated.  Each  act 
was  an  essential  factor  in  the  same  "general  scheme."  We  have  here 
the  full  force  of  Major  Powell's  significant  announcement  that  Mr. 
Henshaw's  effort  was  "a  successful  destructive  criticism!"  It  would, 
perhaps,  have  been  more  prudent,  before  pronouncing  it  "successful," 
to  have  awaited  the  verdict  of  the  large  company  of  cultured  archaeolo 
gists  throughout  the  world  of  science,  who,  in  the  last  resort,  must  pass 
upon  the  merits  of  this  controversy. 

We  cannot  better  take  our  leave  of  Mr.  Henshaw  than  by  quoting 
from  the  American  Naturalist  the  following  humorous  account  of  his 
ludicrous  production  :* 

"Just  as  in  a  hurdle  race  the  crowd  gather  at  the  wicket  to  see  the  horses  make 
the  leaps,  so  the  archaeologists  will  be  anxious  to  know  how  Mr.  Henshaw  gets  over 
some  of  our  archaeological  hedges  and  ditches.  Well,  the  first  animal  to  block  the 
way  is  the  manitee,  and  all  will  agree  that  the  leap  is  effective.  The  next  myth 
attacked  is  that  relating  to  the  toucan,  and  what  is  left  of  it  '  is  easy  of  identifica 
tion.'  The  bird  is  a  common  crow,  or  a  raven,  and  is  one  of  the  most  happily  ex 
ecuted  of  the  avian  sculptures.  The  paroquet  is  treated  more  kindly,  this  species 
having  abounded  in  the  Mississippi  Valley;  but  the  particular  paroquet  of  Squier  and 
Davis  is  made  to  step  aside.  Passing  over  the  remarks  upon  various  well-known 
forms  and  the  skill  shown  in  the  carving,  we  come  to  Mr.  Henshaw's  attack  upon 
the  elephant  mound,  concerning  which  he  doubts  whether  an  effigy  without  ears,  tail, 
tusks,  or  extended  trunk  can  stand  for  a  mastodon.  The  author  throws  discredit 
upon  the  authenticity  of  the  elephant  pipes. " 

To  the  Davenport  Academy,  however,  the  flippant  criticism  of  Mr. 
Henshaw  has  more  serious  import,  and,  uncontradicted,  it  might  inflict 
irreparable  injury.  It  has  been  well  remarked,  "that  not  the  least  mis 
fortune  of  a  prominent  falsehood  is  the  fact  that  tradition  is  apt  to  re 
peat  it  for  truth."  Shielded  under  the  respectable  name  of  the  Smith 
sonian  Institution,  Mr.  Henshaw  insinuates  his  slanders  into  the  ear  of 
the  world.  Not  by  a  frank  and  open  statement,  with  good  reasons 
assigned,  does  this  "naturalist"  condemn  our  elephant  pipes  and  ac 
cuse  their  discoverer;  but,  as  seeking  to  escape  responsibility,  with  a 
nod  and  a  wink,  he  merely  hints,  as  it  were,  in  a  sly  whisper,  "that 
their  authenticity  as  specimens  of  the  Mound-builder's  art  has  been 
seriously  called  in  question."  Thereupon  a  prominent  scientific  jour 
nal,  caught  in  the  snare,  innocently  takes  up  the  whispered  story  and 
reports  to  the  vast  company  of  its  readers  that  Mr.  Henshaw,  an  ac 
credited  representative  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  "throws  discredit 


*  American  Naturalist  for  September,   1884. 


33 

upon  the  authenticity  of  the  elephant  pipes!"  and  this  without  a  word 
of  disapproval  of  its  base  and  unfounded  insinuations.  Nor  is  this  all. 
We  have  before  us  the  work  upon  "  Prehistoric  America,"  by  the  Mar 
quis  De  Nadaillac,  just  issued  from  the  press,  and  therein  we  find  this 
reference  to  the  relics  in  question  : 

"Quite  recently,  in  Iowa,  a  pipe  has  been  found  made  of  rather  soft  sandstone, 
which  is  claimed  to  represent  an  elephant.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  such 
identifications  generally  owe  much  to  the  natural  desire  to  recognize  something 
strange  or  unusual,  and  also  to  the  want  of  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  natural  his 
tory.  A  recently  published  investigation  of  bird-pipes  and  carvings,  by  a  well- 
known  ornithologist,  has  resulted  in  demolishing  the  foundation  of  much  theorizing 
which  has  been  based  on  the  identical  specimens  examined.  Forgeries  are  also  too 
common."  * 

And  the  distinguished  author  gives  as  his  authority  for  these  strong 
statements,  "  H.  W.  Henshaw,  Second  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Eth 
nology,  Washington,  1884."  The  mischief  is  now  done.  The  "de 
structive"  work,  commended  by  Major  Powell,  seems  complete.  The 
unsupported  accusation  is  caught  up  with  avidity,  passed  from  writer  to 
writer,  from  paper  to  paper,  from  book  to  book,  gathering  volume  in 
its  passage,  until  at  length,  having  attained  portentous  proportions,  the 
fiction  may  pass  into  history  as  fact.  The  fiction  is  thus  fairly  launched 
on  its  journey  round  the  world  and  down  the  years.  It  has  been  said, 
though  in  somewhat  homely  phrase,  "that  a  lie  will  travel  from  Maine  to 
Georgia  while  truth  is  stopping  to  put  on  his  boots,"  and  though  these 
should  prove  the  seven-league  "boots"  of  the  nursery  tale,  it  is  doubt 
ful  whether  the  falsehood  can  ever  be  overtaken  and  wholly  overcome. 
The  history  of  archaeology  itself  is  replete  with  instances  of  similar 
wrong-doing,  some  of  which,  like  that  of  the  late  Dr.  Koch,  of  Mis 
souri,  are  full  of  almost  pathetic  interest.  Because  of  his  labors  for 
science,  this  enthusiastic  explorer  was  subjected  to  a  most  "destructive 
criticism"  until  his  life  went  out  in  gloom;  and  now,  at  this  late  day,  a 
distinguished  archaeologist  renders  him  this  tardy  but  well-deserved  jus 
tice : 


*  "  Prehistoric  America,"  by  Xadaillac,  pp.  161-162.  From  the  fact  that  the  above  reference 
to  the  elephant  pipes  has  no  appropriate  setting'  in  the  text,  it  may  be  reasonably  set  down  as  an 
interpolation  by  the  American  editor.  It  gi  ves  occasion  for  surprise  that  so  excellent  an  archa^ol- 
ogist  as  Mr.  Dall  should  thus  have  given  a  prominent  place  in  scientific  literature  to  statements 
of  so  great  importance  without  careful  verification.  In  an  excellent  review  of  this  work,  the 
Nation  thus  notices  the  want  of  harmony  between  its  author  and  editor:  "Availing  himself  of 
the  liberty  judiciously  allowed  him  as  editor,  Mr.  Dall  has  not  only  rewritten  the  chapter  (X.) 
on  the  origin  of  man  in  America,  but  he  has  so  '  modified  and  revised  '  other  portions  of  the 
work  as  to  lead  to  conclusions  that  were  but  little  dreamed  of  in  the  original  publication." 
(Nation,  March  i2th,  iSS5.) 


-34- 

"Unfortunately,  Koch's  want  of  scientific  knowledge  and  the  exaggerations  with 
which  he  accompanied  his  story,  at  first  threw  some  discredit  upon  the  facts  them 
selves.  But  the  recent  discoveries  of  Dr.  Aughey,  in  Iowa  and  Nebraska,  have 
now  confirmed  them.  There,  too,  the  bones  of  the  mastodon  have  been  found 
mixed  with  numerous  stone  weapons,  and  man,  we  learn  to  our  surprise,  armed  with 
these  feeble  weapons,  not  only  did  not  fear  to  attack  the  gigantic  animal,  but  suc 
ceeded  in  vanquishing  it."* 

The  student  in  science  will  also  recall  the  parallel  case  of  M.  Boucher 
de  Perthes,  in  France,  who,  for  years  after  his  remarkable  discoveries 
at  Abbeville,  saw  them  discredited,  and  found  himself  regarded  not 
only  as  an  enthusiast,  but  almost  as  a  madman.  But  his  deductions 
are  now  generally  accepted ;  and  there  is  no  more  impressive  scene  in 
the  history  of  science  than  that  presented  when,  some  fourteen  years 
after  the  publication  of  his  first  work,  he  stood  on  the  spot  of  his  exploit, 
with  representatives  of  the  French  Academy  and  the  Royal  Society  of 
England,  and  received  their  plaudits  over  his  great  discovery.  It  may 
well  be  questioned  whether  progress  in  science  has  not  been  greatly 
retarded  by  the  unreasonable  incredulity  of  its  votaries.  Not  only  in 
religion,  but  in  the  pursuits  of  science  as  well,  we  too  often  find  a  stolid 
adherence  to  old  traditions.  The  religious  intolerance  that  burned 
Bruno  and  the  scientific  intolerance  that  persecuted  Koch  had  a  com 
mon  origin.  With  altered  environments,  the  fanatic  who  saw  only 
"heresy"  in  Bruno's  great  thoughts,  and  the  scientist  who  saw  only 
"fraud"  in  Koch's  great  discovery,  might  easily  have  exchanged 
places,  t 

This  discussion  gives  prominence  to  another  question  of  no  ordinary 
importance,  and  that  is  as  to  the  value  of  local  organizations  through 
out  the  country  in  facilitating  archaeological  research.  The  Bureau  of 
Ethnology  not  only  seems  to  regard  them  with  disfavor,  but  makes  no 
secret  of  its  hostility  to  these  independent  methods  of  research.  It  is 
clearly  contemplated  that  all  these  local  organizations  should  be  re 
solved  into  mere  conduits  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution ;  that  all  explo- 

*"  Prehistoric  America,"  by   Nachiilhic,   p.  37. 

fLubhock's  "Prehistoric  Times,"  pp.  342,  343,  351.  Concerning  the  threat  discoveries  at 
Abbeville,  this  distinguished  author  remarks:  "We  cannot,  therefore,  wonder  that  the  state 
ment  by  Mr.  Frere  has  been  distrusted  for  more  than  half  a  century :  that  the  weapon  found  by 
Mr.  Conyers  has  lain  unnoticed  for  more  than  double  that  time;  that  the  discoveries  by  M. 
Boucher  de  Perthes  have  been  ignored  for  fifteen  years ;  that  the  numerous  cases  in  which  caves 
have  contained  the  remains  of  men  together  with  those  of  extinct  animals,  have  been  suppressed 
or  explained  away.  These  facts  show  how  deeply  rooted  was  the  conviction  that  man  belonged 
altogether  to  a  more  recent  order  of  things;  and,  whatever  other  accusation  may  be  brought 
against  them,  geologists  can  at  least  not  be  said  to  have  hastily  accepted  the  theory  of  the  co 
existence  of  the  human  race  with  the  now  extinct  pachydermata  of  western  Kurope." 


-  35- 

rations  of  mounds  and  earth-works  should  be  under  the  direction  of  its 
Bureau  of  Ethnology ;  and  that  all  relics  obtained  should  be  deposited 
for  safe-keeping  in  the  National  Museum.*  This  certainly  is  a  notable 
scheme;  difficult,  however,  of  execution,  and  of  doubtful  wisdom. 
This  was  not  the  spirit  manifested  by  the  late  Joseph  Henry,  when  in 
charge  of  that  Institution.  In  the  Smithsonian  Report  for  1875,  Pro 
fessor  Henry  thus  states  his  views : 

"It  has  been,  from  the  first,  the  policy  of  this  Institution  to  encourage  the  estab 
lishment  of  such  societies,  on  account  of  the  great  advantage  they  are  to  their 
members  in  the  way  of  intellectual  and  moral  improvement,  as  well  as  in  the  way 
of  positive  contributions  to  science,  "t 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  small  organizations,  scattered  through 
the  land,  are  doing  excellent  service  in  the  cause  of  science.  Being 
located  in  their  midst,  they  are  thus  brought  close  to  the  heart  and 
thought  of  the  people.  Their  stated  meetings  attract  persons  of  sci 
entific  tastes  and  scholarly  acquirements.  The  wonders  of  the  past 
and  the  worth  of  science  are  thus  revealed.  They  inspire  enthusiasm 
in  archaeological  research  and  an  unflagging  zeal  in  its  prosecution. 
They  thus  become  powerful  auxiliaries  to  scientific  education.  Their 
growing  museums  will  first  attract  young  eyes  to  admire,  and  then 
retain  them  to  study.  Mere  relic-hunting  soon  becomes  serious  arch- 

*Th;tt  this  statement  is  not  overdrawn  will  be  made  evident  by  reading  the  description  of  the 
National  Musetim,  by  Ernest  Ingersoll,  in  the  Century  for  January.  Commenting-  upon  that 
article,  Science  remarks:  "Mr.  Ingersoll  develops  the  grandeur  of  the  scheme  with  a  lavish 
hand,  and  it  would  appear  as  if,  were  the  plan  to  be  carried  out  in  detail,  the  District  of  Colum 
bia  would  not  be  large  enough  to  hold  the  Museum."  Nor  does  the  enterprise  of  the  gentlemen 
of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  stop  here!  Major  Powell,  Director  of  its  Bureau  of  Ethnology, 
recently  gave  some  important  testimony  before  a  joint  committee  of  both  Houses  of  Congress, 
wherein  he  recommended  that  "all  the  scientific  institutions  of  the  government  should  be  placed 
under  one  management,"  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  "if  such  of  the  scientific  bureaus  as 
should  properly  have  a  civil  organization  were  placed  under  the  direction  of  the  regents  of  the 
Smithsonian  Institution,  perhaps  the  best  possible  administration  of  the  scientific  work  of  the 
government  would  thereby  he  secured."  The  consolidation,  under  the  management  of  the 
Smithsonian  Institution,  thus  recommended  by  Major  Powell,  embraces  the  Fish  Commission, 
the  National  Museum,  the  Geological  Survey,  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  and  about  everything 
else,  now  scattered  among  the  various  departments,  having-  any  relation  to  science,  literature,  and 
art.  It  reveals  a  gigantic  scheme,  and  it  may  be  questioned  whether  any  single  management 
would  be  equal  to  its  proper  requirements.  A  valuable  report  was  also  submitted  upon  the 
same  subject  by  a  committee  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  consisting  of  General  Meigs 
and  Professors  J.  P.  Trowhridge,  Pickering,  Young,  Walker,  and  Langley,  wherein  the  follow 
ing  more  moderate  views  were  expressed :  "  We  conceive  it  to  be  a  sound  principle,  that  Congress 
should  not  undertake  any  work  which  can  be  equally  well  done  by  the  enterprise  of  individual 
investigators.  Our  leading  universities  are  constantly  increasing  the  means  of  scientific  research 
by  their  professors  and  students,  and  while  the  government  may  with  propriety  encourage  :md 
cooperate  with  them,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  compete  with  them.  The  scientific  work  of 
the  government  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  such  as  can  be  undertaken  by  individuals."  (Science, 
January  2d  and  i6th,  1885.) 

f  Smithsonian  Report  for  1875,  pp.  217-219. 


-36- 

03ological  research.  Out  of  these  practical  schools  of  the  people  will 
come  the  great  scientific  students  of  the  future.  The  work  in  these 
small  societies  is  all  the  more  valuable  that  it  is  entirely  disinterested. 
Truth  j  is  its  inspiration  and  reward.  Watched  by  so  many  curious 
eyes,  frauds  are  well-nigh  impossible.  We  have  thus  presented  im 
portant  services  rendered  to  science  by  these  "local  societies"  which 
no  gigantic  institution,  located  at  tlr^  political  capital  of  our  country, 
and  managed  by  salaried  officers,  could,  by  any  possibility,  have  so 
well  performed.  We  think  we  may  claim,  without  unseemly  arrogance, 
that  the  history  of  the  Davenport  Academy  itself  reveals  some  contri 
butions  to  science  which  will  justify  its  existence.* 

Scholars  will  ever  find  an  absorbing  interest  in  archaeological  re 
search.  There  is  in  the  mind  of  man  an  innate  craving  to  recover  the 
secrets  of  the  past,  and  brooding  in  the  thought  of  the  explorer  is  the 
confident  expectation  that  in  these  ancient  relics  will  yet  be  found 
indelible  traces  of  ancestry  or  undoubted  remains  of  ancient  civiliza 
tions.  In  the  view  of  the  Director  of  the  Bureau,  it  is  true,  "working 
naturalists  postulate  evolution, "t  and  he  deprecates  the  "search  for 
an  extra-limital  origin"  for  the  ancient  races  of  North  America.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  he  proposes  to  work  out  upon  our  own 
continent  the  problem  of  man's  origin  and  existence.  Those  of  us, 
however,  who  still  hold  to  the  orthodox  belief  in  the  unity  of  the  race, 
will  continue  to  indulge  in  the  conjecture  that  sometime,  .somehow, 
somewhere,  by  adventurous  barque  of  some  ancient  mariner,  by 
bridge  of  ice  at  the  north,  or  by  a  lost  Atlantis  at  the  south,  a  pathway 
was  opened,  and  the  original  progenitors  •  of  the  races  found  on  this 
continent  by  the  discoverers  made  their  way  from  the  great  centers  of 
populations  in  the  far  orient.  J  Be  this  as  it  may,  so  far  as  the  ancient 


*The  conclusions  stated  in  the  text  are  amply  justified  by  the  facts.  The  Davenport  Acad  - 
emy  is  not  only  assailed  by  name,  but  it  is  plainly  expressed  that  its  discoveries  are  under  ban, 
and  that  its  exploration  of  ancient  mounds  should  be  discontinued,  inasmuch  as  each  fresh  dis 
covery  "  will  b?  ri-ceirfd  with  erfr-increasing  suspicion  /"  Had  our  critic  been  kindly  disposed, 
his  censure  might  have  been  more  gently  administered.  He  might  have  admitted  the  possibility 
of  our  being- deceived  and  not  deceivers.  He  could  have  easily  attributed  our  short-comings  to 
our  benighted  location  on  the  far  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  so  distant  from  the  Bureau  of  Eth 
nology!  Our  critic,  however,  is  pitiless.  He  li  is  studied  the  Indian  character  until  he  seems  to 
have  imbibed  his  nature!  We  are  pelted  with  red-hot  epithets!  Nothing  will  satisfy  his  "de 
structive"  appetite,  unless  our  Mr.  Gass  puts  aside  his  spade! 

•j- "  Origin  of  Man,"  J.  W.  Powell,  First  Annual  Report  Bureau  of  Kthnology,  1879-80,  p.  77. 

|  The  theory  has  been  advanced,  upon  high  authority,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  Americas  are. 
geologically  the  elder  of  the  continents,  there  is  a  strong  possibility  that  the  human  race  origin 
ated  here,  and  hence  that  the  tide  of  emigration  may  have  set  the  other  way.  Dr.  Lapham  says: 
"  I  know  reasons  valid  enough  and  numerous  enough  to  have  made  the  notion  of  the  New  World 
being  the  oldest  of  the  two  a  paradox.  Nevertheless,  I  know  of  no  absolutely  conclusive  ones." 


—  37  — 

works  of  art  under  consideration  are  concerned,  it  matters  little 
whether  they  be  traced  to  the  ancestors  of  our  present  Indians,  thus 
showing  decadence  in  the  race;  or  to  the  Toltec  or  Aztec  of  ancient 
Mexico,  thus  indicating  that,  with  their-  migrations  southward,  they 
evolved  a  higher  civilization.  There  is  nothing  in  either  theory,  or  in 
all  of  them,  to  require  or  justify  the  "destructive  criticism"  visited  upon 
the  Davenport  Academy  and  its  members.* 

We  regret  the  occasion  which  has  made  necessary  this  defense  of 
our  Academy  against  a  most  unjust  assault. t  Many  words  of  cheer 

As  the  New  \VoriU,  so-called,  is  the  ul^st  gjologically,  it  in.iy  provo  to  bo  so  eUmologically. 
(New  American  Cyclopaedia,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  488,  title  "Indians.") 

"  In  the  classification  of  Blumenbach,  the  American  Indians  are  treated  as  a  distinct  variety  of 
the  human  race;  but  in  the  three-fold  division  of  mankind  laid  down  by  Dr.  Latham,  they  are 
ranked  among  the  Mongolida;.  Other  ethnologists  also  regard  them  as  a  branch  of  the  great 
Mongolian  family,  which,  at  a  remote  period  of  the  world's  history,  found  its  way  from  Asia  to 
the  American  continent,  and  there  remained  for  thousands  of  years,  separate  from  the  rest  of 
mankind,  passing  meanwhile  through  various  alternations  of  barbarism  and  civili/.ation.  Morton, 
however,  the  distinguished  American  ethnologist,  and  his  disciples,  Nott  and  Gliddon,  claim  for 
them  a  distinct  origin,  one  as  indigenous  to  the  continent  itself  as  its  fauna  and  flora."  (Chambers's 
Encyclopaedia,  Vol.  V.,  p.  554,  title  "Indians.") 

The  concluding  chapter  of  Nadaillac's  "  Prehistoric  America"  is  contributed  by  the  American 
editor,  Mr.  Ball,  and  his  conclusions,  as  therein  stated,  are  among  the  most  reasonable  yet 
advanced.  He  thus  states  his  views:  "  Squier,  Gibbs,  and  numerous  American  ethnologists, 
believed  in  a  migration  from  the  west  to  South  America.  A  northern  migration  is  almost 
universally  considered  to  have  taken  place.  Probably  the  American  races  entered  by  both  gates." 
And  in  the  same  connection  he  further  remarks:  "  That  America  was  peopled  at  different  times, 
bv  scions  of  different  races,  is  highly  probable,  from  the  physical  differences  to  be  observed 
between  the  remains  of  prehistoric  man  and  the  complexion  and  features  he  bequeathed  to  his 
historic  descendants."  ("  Prehistoric  America,"  by  Xadaillac,  pp.  5^3~531-J 

*  In  concluding  this  vindication  of  the  Davenport  Academy  from  the  unfounded  accusations 
of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  we  desire  to  express  our  high  appreciation  of  the  great  ability  and 
large  acquirements  of  its  Director,  Major  Powell,  and  of  the  valuable  contributions  he  has  made 
to  the  cause  of  science.  The  careless  supervision  of  the  work  of  subordinates,  which  permitted 
the  publication  of  a  paper  so  void  of  merit  and  so  full  of  blunders  as  the  one  in  question  of  Mr. 
Henshaw,  as  well  as  the  endorsement  of  its  statements  and  deductions  without  careful  verifica 
tion,  must,  no  doubt,  be  set  down  as  among  the  mistakes  of  an  overburdened  man.  Bv  the  con 
solidation  of  the  Government  Surveys  in  1879,  Major  Powell  became  the  Director  of  this  great 
work,  and  when,  at  the  same  time,  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  was  established,  under  the  charge 
of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  he  was  also  appointed  the  Director  of  that  department.  It  will, 
therefore,  occasion  no  surprise  that  he  is  left  little  opportunity  for  calm  and  careful  supervision 
of  the  scientific  work  of  his  assistants.  This  fact  becomes  still  more  apparent,  when  it  is  consid 
ered  that,  superadded  to  the  proper  work  of  these  departments,  the  executive  management 
also  devolves  upon  Major  Powell  important  and  absorbing  political  duties. 

fThe  attack  made  upon  the  Davenport  Academy  by  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  was  wholly  unex 
pected.  The  paper  of  Mr.  Henshaw  has  been  written  for  several  years,  and  yet,  until  the  recent 
distribution  of  the  volume  containing  it,  the  officers  of  the  Academy  had  received  no  intimation 
that  such  an  accusation  was  impending  over  it.  We  have  been  accused,  convicted,  and  sentenced 
without  opportunity  of  defense.  This  extraordinary  proceeding  occasions  the  greater  surprise 
from  the  fact  that  our  Academy  is  under  great  obligations  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  both 
under  the  former  and  present  administrations,  for  especial  favors.  Through  it  our  foreign 
exchanges  have  been  made,  and  we  are  indebted  to  it  for  large  additions  to  our  library.  We 
therefore  take  this  occasion  to  distinguish  between  that  Institution  and  its  "destructive"  Bureau 
of  Ethnology. 


came  to  our  young  society  from  the  illustrious  and  lamented  Henry, 
while  he  was  in  charge  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  ;  and  we  can  now 
regard  the  Institution  he  has  left  behind  him  only  with  admiration,  as 
the  emanation  of  his  broad  intelligence.  The  great  vacancy  occa 
sioned  by  his  death  has  been  well-filled  by  Professor  Baird,  and  it  is 
fortunate  for  the  cause  of  science  that  so  capable  and  scholarly  a  suc 
cessor  was  found  to  take  up  and  carry  on  the  important  work  so 
auspiciously  commenced.  The  Smithsonian  Institution  easily  takes  its 
place  among  the  great  scientific  organizations  of  the  world  —  with  the 
Academy  of  France  or  the  Royal  Society  of  England.  It  is  its  noble 
mission  to  encourage  original  research  and  give  proper  direction  to 
the  scientific  thought  of  our  country.  It  will  best  subserve  this  great 
purpose  by  sternly  observing  in  its  discussions  the  dignity  and  decorum 
of  high  scholarship,  the  serene  and  catholic  spirit  of  true  science. 

In  submitting  this  refutation,  we  have  sought  to  avoid  scientific  dis 
cussion,  and  have  carefully  abstained  from  taking  part  in  the  war  of 
rival  theories.  It  has  been  our  object  to  clear  our  unique  relics  from 
all  taint  of  suspicion,  and  so  to  present  them  to  the  scientific  world  for 
careful  study.  Upon  experienced  archaeologists  will  devolve  the  duty 
of  tracing  resemblances  and  deciphering  inscriptions;  and  to  them 
will  belong  the  privilege  of  determining  their  age  and  origin,  and  of 
announcing  their  scientific  significance  and  value.  In  themselves  per 
haps  insufficient  to  become  the  basis  for  positive  deductions,  these 
relics  must  take  their  place  with  other  discoveries  until  that  "good 
time  coming,"  when  the  basis  of  fact  shall  be  deep  and  broad  enough 
to  allow  the  opening  of  another  page  in  the  "unwritten  history"  of 
our  earth  and  race. 

The  purpose  of  this  paper  will  have  been  accomplished,  if  we  have 
succeeded  in  vindicating  a  generous  and  worthy  man  from  foul  asper-" 
sions;  our  young  and  growing  Academy  from  the  stigma  of  participa 
tion  in  a  disgraceful  deception  ;  and  our  unique  and  valuable  relics 
from  all  reasonable  ground  for  suspicion. 


APPENDIX  I. 


Since  concluding  the  foregoing  paper,  we  have  obtained  the  follow 
ing  wood-cut  of  the  elephant  pipe  found  in  1873,  by  Peter  Mare,  in 
a  corn-field  in  Louisa  County,  Iowa,  and  now  in  the  museum  of  the 
Davenport  Academy : 


The  above  wood-cut  is  a  correct  representation,  in  outline,  of  one  of 
the  elephant  pipes  of  which  Mr.  Henshaw  wrote  as  follows:  "It  is  also 
remarkable  that  /;/  neither  of  these  pipes  is  the  tail  indicated,  although 
a  glance  at  the  other  sculptures  will  show  that  in  the  full-length  figures 
this  member  is  invariably  shown.  In  respect  to  these  omissions,  the  pipes 
of  Iowa  are  strikingly  suggestive  of  f/ie  elepliant  mound  of  Wisconsin, 
with  the  peculiarities  of  which  the  sculptor,  whether  ancient  or  mod 
ern,  might  almost  be  supposed  to  have  been  acquainted."  *  The  accu 
racy  of  this  representation  can  easily  be  verified  by  comparison  with 
the  photographs  of  these  pipes  in  possession  of  the  Smithsonian  Insti 
tution.  As  will  be  seen  by  "a  glance"  at  the  above  representation,  the 
"tail"  is  therein  clearly  "indicated,"  and  as  it  is  also  a  prominent  feature 
in  the  other  elephant  pipe,  Mr.  Henshaw's  rlimsy  argument  is  left  with 
out  foundation,  and  he  stands  convicted  of  an  inexcusable  blunder. 


*  Second  Annual  Report  Hureau  of  Ethnology,   1880-81,  p.   156. 


APPENDIX  II. 


DAVENPORT,   TOWA,   February  6th,    1885. 

At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  .the  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sci 
ences,  held  on  Friday  evening,  January  3Oth,  1885,  Dr.  ('.  H.  Preston  offered 
the  following  resolutions,  which  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

WHEREAS,  The  Second  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Eth 
nology  contains  an  unjust  and  gratuitous  attack  upon  the  honor  and  good  faith  of 
this  Academy  and  some  of  its  members,  calling  in  question  the  genuineness  of  cer 
tain  articles  in  its  museum;  and, 

WHEREAS,  Such  attacks  must  tend  to  impair  and  destroy  the  usefulness  of  such 
collections  and  to  discourage  earnest  and  faithful  workers  in  their  disinterested 
labors;  therefore, 

Resolved i  That  justice  and  the  interests  of  science  imperatively  demand  a  com 
plete  refutation  of  these  charges,  and  vindication  of  the  character  of  the  parties 
attacked,  and  especially  of  our  honored  associate,  Rev.  J.  Gass;  and, 

Resolved )  That  the  foregoing  paper,  prepared  by  Mr.  C.  F.  Putnam,  and,  as  we 
are  fully  satisfied,  representing  the  whole  matter  in  all  truth  and  fairness,  be  adopted 
as  our  reply  to  the  article  in  question;  and, 

Resolved,  That  —  —  copies  of  said  paper  be  published  immediately,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Academy  Publication  Committee,  in  pamphlet  form,  corresponding 
with  the  Proceedings,  and  that  the  same  be  distributed,  as  far  as  possible,  to  parties 
who  receive  the  above-mentioned  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Fthnology,  and  to  all 
known  archaeological  associations,  and  to  individual  collectors  and  explorers,  and  to 
all  publishers  and  writers  on  the  subject,  and  that  a  record  be  kept,  of  all  parties  to 
whom  it  has  been  sent. 

The  above  resolutions  are  correctly  transcribed  from  the  records  of  the  Acad 
emy,  and  the  same  will  appear  in  Volume  V.  of  its  published  Proceedings. 

L.   M.    PRATT,  Recording  -Secretary. 


FTJB  LI  O^L.T  IO  IsTS 

OF    Till- 

Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences. 


Three  volumes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  have  been  published,  and  the 
fourth  volume  is  now  in  press.  Price  of  each  volume,  bound  in  cloth,  $5.00  ;  in 
paper  covers,  $4.00. 

VOLUME  I.,  1867-1876.  Published  for  the  Academy  by  the  Women's  Centen 
nial  Association,  July  1876.  8vo,  pp.  304,  38  plates. 


Ym.r.MK  II.,  1876-1878.  Published  by  J.  D.  Putnam,  1877-1880.  8vo,  pp. 
365,  13  plates,  24  wood-cuts. 

VOLUME  III.,  1879-1881.  Published  by  the  Academy.  8vo,  pp.  310,  9  plates, 
10  wood-cuts.  This  volume  contains  a  biographical  sketch  and  a  fine  steel  portrait 
of  the  late  J.  Duncan  Putnam. 

VOLUME  IV.,  1881-1884.      8vo,  pp.  300.      In  press. 

Principal  Contents:  Proceedings  of  the  Annual  Meeting,  January  4th,  1881; 
Address  of  the  President;  Reports  of  Officers;  Election  of  Officers,  etc. 

List  of  Contributions  to  the  Museum,  1879-1881. 

Contributions  to  the  Flora  of  Iowa,  No.  V.     J.  C.  Arthur. 

Arctostaphylos,  Adans.  Notes  on  United  States  Pacific  Coast  Survey  and  a 
New  Species  from  Lower  California.  Dr.  C.  C.  Parry. 

New  Plants  from  Lower  California.     Dr.  C.  C.  Parry. 

The  Chambers  Lightning- Rod.      Prof.  E.  W.  Claypole. 

Chorizanthe,  R.  Brown.  Revision  of  the  Genus  and  Re-arrangement  of  the 
Annual  Species.  Dr.  C.  C.  Parry. 

Contributions  to  the  Flora  of  Iowa,  No.  VI.     J.  C.  Arthur. 

On  a  New  Genus  and  Species  of  Blastoids.  (Two  illustrations.)  Charles 
Wachsmuth. 

Descriptions  of  Some  New  Blastoids  from  the  Hamilton  Group.  (One  illustra 
tion.)  Prof.  W.  H.  Harris. 

Description  of  a  New  Crinoid  from  the  Hamilton  Group  of  Michigan.  Charles 
Wachsmuth. 

Descriptions  of  Some  Xew  Crinoids  from  the  Hamilton  Group.  (Two  plates.) 
Prof.  W.  H.  Ban-is. 

Remarks  on  Aboriginal  Art  in  California  and  in  Queen  Charlotte's  Island. 
(Three  plates.)  W.  J.  Hoffman,  M.D. 

Ancient  Pottery  of  the  Mississippi  Valley:  a  Study  of  the  Collections  in  the  Mu 
seum  of  the  Davenport  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences.  (With  numerous  illustra 
tions.)  W.  H.  Holmes. 

Biographical  Sketch  of  the  late  Dr.  R.  J.  Farquharson.  (With  portrait.)  Dr. 
W.  D.  Middleton. 

Synopsis  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  from  1881  to  1884,  inclusive. 


%*  The  papers  published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  are  all  the  result 
of  original  investigations  of  the  authors.  Owing  to  the  peculiarly  favorable  situ 
ation  of  Davenport,  the  archaeological  papers  are  of  very  unusual  interest,  and 
contain  a  vast  amount  of  information  concerning  the  ancient  Mound-Builders  of  the 
Mississippi  Valley  not  accessible  elsewhere. 


APR  2 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  publication  is  due  on  the  LAST  DATE 
stamped  below. 


JAN  2  '63-7 
APR  20  70 -7 


APR  2 ?  70 -7 


JAN    6  1976 


RB  17-60m-8,'60 
(B3395slO)4188 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


